Port Scanner API
Server Details
Scan the open TCP ports of your own public IP. Fast (32) or deep (65535). No key, no signup.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Both tools scan the same target (user's own IP) and have similar return patterns, but they are distinguished by port coverage (65535 vs 32 ports) and time. An agent might need to read descriptions carefully, but the purpose is clearly different.
Both tools follow a consistent pattern: descriptive adjective followed by '_scan'. Names are clear and predictable.
With only two tools, the surface is minimal but justified for a focused port scanning utility. It is not over- or under-scoped for the stated purpose.
The tools cover full and quick scanning, but lack options for custom port ranges, targeting other IPs, or retrieving historical results independently. Essential workflows are present, but minor gaps exist.
Available Tools
2 toolsdeep_scanDeep port scan (all ports)AInspect
Scan all 65535 TCP ports (~1-5 min) of YOUR OWN public IP address - the egress IP of the machine running this MCP client. There is no target argument: by policy portscan only scans the requester's own IP. The call is non-blocking and keyed by your IP: it starts a scan if none is running, otherwise returns the current state. Call deep_scan repeatedly to poll until status is "complete" (or "incomplete"/"failed"); open ports and service banners are in the result. Pass rescan:true to force a fresh scan when a previous result already exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rescan | No | Force a new scan even if a recent result exists for your IP. Default false: reuse the in-flight or last result. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| message | Yes | |
| partial | No | |
| percent | No | |
| scan_type | Yes | |
| ports_open | No | |
| ptr_record | No | |
| duration_ms | No | |
| fail_reason | No | |
| total_chunks | No | |
| ports_filtered | No | |
| chunks_complete | No | |
| service_banners | No | |
| poll_after_seconds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses non-blocking nature, IP-keyed state, polling pattern, and possible result statuses, adding significant context beyond the annotations (which only indicate it is not read-only and is open-world).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct (under 100 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides essential detail without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers all need-to-know aspects: purpose, policy, polling, parameter usage, and expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the lone parameter with description, but the tool description adds value by explaining when to set rescan=true (force fresh scan), justifying a score above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it scans all 65535 TCP ports of the user's own public IP, distinguishing itself from the sibling fast_scan by emphasizing completeness and target limitation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly explains when to use (own IP only), how to poll by calling repeatedly, and the effect of the rescan parameter, leaving no ambiguity about usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fast_scanFast port scan (common ports)AInspect
Scan the 32 most common TCP ports (~20s) of YOUR OWN public IP address - the egress IP of the machine running this MCP client. There is no target argument: by policy portscan only scans the requester's own IP. The call is non-blocking and keyed by your IP: it starts a scan if none is running, otherwise returns the current state. Call fast_scan repeatedly to poll until status is "complete" (or "incomplete"/"failed"); open ports and service banners are in the result. Pass rescan:true to force a fresh scan when a previous result already exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rescan | No | Force a new scan even if a recent result exists for your IP. Default false: reuse the in-flight or last result. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| message | Yes | |
| partial | No | |
| percent | No | |
| scan_type | Yes | |
| ports_open | No | |
| ptr_record | No | |
| duration_ms | No | |
| fail_reason | No | |
| total_chunks | No | |
| ports_filtered | No | |
| chunks_complete | No | |
| service_banners | No | |
| poll_after_seconds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses non-blocking, keyed-by-IP behavior, state return in progress, and conditions for rescan. Annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true) are consistent and description adds context about scanning network, which matches open-world nature. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is somewhat long but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical: purpose, constraint, behavior, parameter usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (non-blocking poll-based scan, one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary details: timing, own-IP restriction, state management, rescan logic. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'rescan' with schema coverage 100%. Description adds context: explains that a cached result may exist and rescan overrides it. Beyond schema baseline, but schema already provides clear description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'scan', specific resource '32 most common TCP ports on own public IP', and distinction from sibling 'deep_scan' by mentioning 'common ports' vs implied deeper scan. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states no target argument, only scans own IP. Provides polling guidance: call repeatedly until status complete. Explains rescan parameter for forcing fresh scan. Contrasts with sibling by name. Comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!