SiteCheck Web Intel

From Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data: whether TCP

security_ssh_banner_audit

Read-only

From Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data: whether TCP port 22 was seen open on an IPv4 address and any OpenSSH version identified in its software (CPE) list. This is passive and may be days old; it is not a live SSH banner grab or algorithm audit. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_ntp_monlist_audit when you need reports whether Shodan's pre-collected passive scan data; security_bimi_record_audit when you need to read a domain's BIMI record: whether it is published. 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_ssh_banner_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 address such as 185.220.100.240 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No
`known`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`opensshVersion`	No
`sshPortSeenOpen`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds meaningful behavior: results come from pre-collected passive data and may be days old, and billing is $0.002 USDC per successful call with failures not charged — cost and freshness both matter for an agent deciding to call.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The core purpose and the passive-vs-live caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and every remaining sentence carries either an exclusion or pricing information. No redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

The output schema covers return structure, and the description supplies the two things it cannot: that data is stale passive observation and that it reflects CPE-listed OpenSSH versions rather than a probed banner. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the result 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already gives the format ('IPv4 address such as 185.220.100.240'). The description adds no further constraint such as IPv6 rejection or private-range handling, 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+resource: whether TCP port 22 was seen open on an IPv4 address, plus any OpenSSH version in the CPE list, sourced from Shodan passive scan data. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a live SSH banner grab or algorithm audit, so an agent can separate it from active-scan siblings.

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 a clear exclusion ('not a live SSH banner grab or algorithm audit') and a staleness warning that implicitly tells the agent when this is the right choice. However, the named alternatives are mismatched non-sequiturs — 'security_ntp_monlist_audit' and 'security_bimi_record_audit' have nothing to do with SSH exposure, and the first clause is garbled, so the routing guidance misfires.

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?