Port Scanner API

Fast port scan (common ports)

fast_scan

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.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is non-blocking, keyed by IP, returns current state if a scan is already running, must be polled until a terminal status, and rescan forces a fresh scan. This adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph but every sentence contributes essential operational detail (scope, policy, non-blocking behavior, polling, result contents, rescan). It is slightly verbose but appropriately sized for the complexity; there is no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's asynchronous nature, polling requirement, and output schema presence, the description provides complete guidance: it explains status values, result contents, and how to force a new scan. Combined with the schema and annotations, the agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (rescan) with a description. The tool description adds further practical meaning by explaining the effect of rescan:true (force a fresh scan) and the default behavior, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 the tool scans the 32 most common TCP ports of the requester's own public IP, with a specific verb ('scan'), resource ('your own IP'), and scope ('common ports'). It also distinguishes from the sibling deep_scan by explicitly limiting to common ports and noting there is no target argument.

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 gives clear usage context: it explains the policy constraint (only scans the requester's own IP), the non-blocking/polling behavior, and when to use rescan:true. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative deep_scan or state when to prefer one over the other, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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?