Skip to main content
Glama

SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks Shodan's passive scan records for TCP port 445

security_smb_exposure_test
Read-only

Checks Shodan's passive scan records for TCP port 445 (SMB) on an IPv4 address. Says whether SMB was seen open and when the record was last refreshed by the host data (not a live test). An address with no Shodan record returns seen=false with known=false; that is not proof the port is closed. 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_snmp_exposure 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_smb_exposure_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 address such as 1.1.1.1 (required)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipNo
seenNo
knownNo
sourceNo
checkedAtNo
openPortsSeenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, it discloses the passive Shodan data source, record-refresh semantics, and the exact seen=false/known=false behavior for addresses without records. It also provides the successful-call price, x402 payment method and supported networks, and confirms that failed calls are 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?

The purpose and the most important non-live and absent-record caveats are front-loaded, while pricing is stated compactly. The sibling-tool sentence is repetitive, and the phrase 'when you need reports whether...' is grammatically broken and incomplete, preventing a top score.

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 one-parameter passive lookup with an output schema, the description covers the target, source, freshness, negative-result interpretation, related tools, and charging behavior. Additional return-value documentation is unnecessary because a structured output schema is supplied.

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 ip parameter already has full schema coverage, including its IPv4 type, example, and required status. The description confirms that the target is an IPv4 address but adds no further formatting, validation, or edge-case semantics, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 opening sentence precisely identifies the action, data source, resource, protocol, port, and target: checking Shodan's passive records for SMB on TCP 445 at an IPv4 address. It also distinguishes the tool from the RDP and SNMP exposure siblings, making its scope immediately clear.

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 parenthetical 'not a live test' and the warning that an absent record does not prove the port is closed provide meaningful guidance on appropriate use and interpretation. It explicitly routes port-3389 needs to security_rdp_exposure_check, but the SNMP alternative is incomplete and it does not direct live-scanning needs to security_open_port_scanner.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources