SiteCheck Web Intel

Shodan InternetDB summary for an IPv4 address: open TCP

security_shodan_host_summary

Read-only

Shodan InternetDB summary for an IPv4 address (free, no key): open TCP ports, host names seen, CPE software identifiers, tags and CVE IDs Shodan associates with the host. Data is from Shodan's last scan, so it can be days old; an IP with no data returns empty lists with known=false. 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_shodan_host_summary"
  }
}

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
`cpes`	No
`tags`	No
`known`	No
`ports`	No
`vulns`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`hostnames`	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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses staleness of the underlying scan, the exact shape of a no-data response, and the billing model ($0.002 USDC via x402, failed calls not charged). Cost and charge-on-failure behavior are the kind of operational facts an agent 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by data-freshness caveats and pricing. Every sentence carries information; only minor tightening (e.g., merging the free/no-key note with the pricing sentence) would improve it.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with an output schema and annotations already present, the description covers everything an agent needs: data provenance, freshness, empty-result semantics, and payment terms. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single documented 'ip' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description restates the IPv4-only scope but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail (e.g., IPv6 rejection) beyond what the schema already says.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names the exact source (Shodan InternetDB), the resource (IPv4 host), and enumerates the returned data classes (open TCP ports, hostnames, CPEs, tags, CVEs), which distinguishes it from generic scanners like security_open_port_scanner or security_censys_exposure. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Gives useful caller context — free/no key, data may be days old, empty lists with known=false when nothing is known — which implicitly tells the agent what results to expect. It never states when to prefer a live scan (security_open_port_scanner) or Censys over this cached source, so alternative selection is left 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?