SiteCheck Web Intel

Lists the TCP ports Shodan has seen open on an IPv4

security_open_port_scanner

Read-only

Lists the TCP ports Shodan has seen open on an IPv4 address, from its pre-collected passive scan data (not a live scan: nothing connects to the address now). The record can be days old, and an address with no record returns known=false, which does not prove the ports are closed. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_open_resolver_check when you need reports whether Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data. 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_open_port_scanner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 address such as 1.1.1.1 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`known`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`openPorts`	No
`portCount`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the supplied readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that nothing connects to the target now, that records can be days old, that a missing record yields known=false which does not prove ports are closed, and the exact billing model ($0.002 USDC via x402, failures not charged). Those are precisely the behavioral facts an agent needs and cannot get from annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence and the cost disclosure are tight and front-loaded, but the middle 'Related tools' sentence is broken mid-thought and occupies space without conveying a usable distinction. Fixing or removing that fragment would materially improve the definition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still adds the key interpretive note about known=false. Combined with the passive-scan caveat and pricing, the definition is nearly complete for a one-parameter lookup; only the malformed sibling reference leaves a gap.

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?

Only one parameter (ip), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents format and requiredness. The description adds no syntactic or semantic detail about the ip argument beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists the TCP ports Shodan has seen open on an IPv4 address') and immediately qualifies the data source as pre-collected passive scan data rather than a live scan. This cleanly separates it from live-scan and host-summary siblings such as security_shodan_host_summary or security_rdp_exposure_check.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is an explicit attempt at differentiation ('Related tools on this server, for a different need'), but the sentence is truncated and garbled: 'security_open_resolver_check when you need reports whether Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data' — the condition for choosing the alternative never actually resolves. Usage is therefore only partially implied, and the agent must guess the routing rule.

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?