SiteCheck Web Intel

Reports whether Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data

security_snmp_exposure

Read-only

Reports whether Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data shows SNMP (UDP port 161) seen open on an IPv4 address. Passive and possibly old; no community string is tried, so default or public community access is not tested. 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_snmp_exposure"
  }
}

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
`communityTested`	No
`snmpPortSeenOpen`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses that the data is passive and possibly old, that no active probing or community-string attempt occurs, and the billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls not charged). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending money on a call and before interpreting a negative result.

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 key facts (what it reports, passivity caveat, alternatives, price) are front-loaded and each sentence carries information. The sibling references are slightly repetitive in restating 'check Shodan's passive scan records for TCP port...' twice, which could be compressed without losing meaning.

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, read-only lookup with an output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description covers the remaining unknowns: data provenance/staleness, absence of active probing, sibling routing, and cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret it is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'ip' parameter, so the schema already documents it as a required IPv4 address with an example. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: reporting whether Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data shows SNMP on UDP port 161 for an IPv4 address. It explicitly scopes the method (passive, pre-collected) and the protocol/port, which separates it from the RDP and SMB siblings that check different ports.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states when the tool applies (passive SNMP visibility) and when it does not ('no community string is tried, so default or public community access is not tested'), which tells an agent not to treat a positive result as proof of accessible SNMP. It also names the two sibling tools and the exact condition that selects each of them (TCP 3389 and TCP 445).

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?