SiteCheck Web Intel

Censys host view for an IPv4 address: the services, ports

security_censys_exposure

Read-only

Censys host view for an IPv4 address: the services, ports and protocols Censys has observed on it with their last scan time and detected software, plus autonomous system, location, network owner and reverse DNS, from the Censys Platform API. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_rdp_exposure_check when you need to check Shodan's passive scan records for TCP port 3389; security_smb_exposure_test when you need to check Shodan's passive scan records for TCP port 445. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "security_censys_exposure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 address such as 8.8.8.8 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`source`	No
`location`	No
`services`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`reverseDns`	No
`organization`	No
`serviceCount`	No
`autonomousSystem`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the upstream source (Censys Platform API), that results reflect Censys's last scan, and the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, then alternatives, then cost. The pricing sentence is long but carries decision-relevant information; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. For a single-parameter read tool, the description covers source, scope, cost, and alternatives — everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with an example (8.8.8.8). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, but with a single fully-documented parameter the baseline is a 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Censys host view for an IPv4 address') and enumerates the returned data: services, ports, protocols, last scan time, detected software, AS, location, network owner, reverse DNS. This is clearly distinguishable from the Shodan-based siblings it names.

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?

Explicitly routes two adjacent needs to security_rdp_exposure_check and security_smb_exposure_test, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closest sibling, security_shodan_host_summary, leaving the Censys-vs-Shodan host-lookup choice to inference.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?