Port Scanner API

Deep port scan (all ports)

deep_scan

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses non-blocking behavior, keying by IP, poll-until-complete statuses ('complete'/'incomplete'/'failed'), result contents (open ports and banners), and rescan semantics. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent with this side-effecting, externally-reachable action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each providing necessary detail—scope, policy, polling, and rescan—with the core action first. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema handles return structure, while the description covers timing (1-5 min), non-blocking polling, status values, and result contents, making it fully actionable for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter rescan is already documented in the schema with full coverage; the description restates it without adding significant new semantics. Baseline 3 applies because schema covers the parameter adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Scan all 65535 TCP ports' of the user's own public IP, with explicit policy restriction against targeting others. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling fast_scan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the polling pattern and rescan flag, and notes the policy restriction that only the requester's own IP can be scanned. However, it does not explicitly contrast with fast_scan or state when to prefer one over the other.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Port Scanner API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The two tools are clearly differentiated by scan depth (all ports vs. 32 common ports) and descriptions explicitly note the difference. However, they share virtually identical mechanics and phrasing, so an agent could briefly confuse them. Still, a careful reader can tell them apart unambiguously.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent double_verb pattern: 'deep_scan' and 'fast_scan'. The naming clearly communicates the differentiator (depth vs. speed) and the shared 'scan' suffix makes the set cohesive.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels minimally scoped. The pair covers fast and deep scanning, which is reasonable for a simple port scanner, but the count is on the borderline of feeling thin.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core domain of scanning your own public IP with both a quick and a thorough option. It lacks features like custom port ranges or UDP scanning, but for the stated policy-restricted purpose, it is functionally complete.

Resources

Need Help?