Skip to main content
Glama

Shodan Internetdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx — Grounded

ask_pipeworx_grounded
Read-onlyIdempotent

Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Same routing as ask_pipeworx — picks the right tool from 5,743 across 1500 sources, fills arguments, fetches the data — then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains. Returns {answer, evidence (verbatim quote), confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} on success, OR an explicit refusal {answer:null, refusal_reason:"not_in_source"|"no_tool_match"|"tool_error"|"data_truncated"|"llm_error"} when the data doesn't directly answer. Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact return shape, the refusal reasons, the verbatim evidence behavior, and the extra LLM call cost. It also clarifies that the tool may explicitly refuse when data doesn't directly answer, which is critical behavioral context.

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 description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then covering behavior, return contract, refusal modes, and usage tradeoffs. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a full picture of success and refusal responses, source handling, evidence extraction, and cost implications. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in high-stakes scenarios.

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 input schema already documents the single required parameter and its aliases with 100% coverage. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics, but it doesn't need to because the schema is complete.

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 clearly defines this as a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, explicitly stating that it extracts answers only from tool results. It differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing groundedness and evidence-based responses.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (quoted, cited, or acted-on answers; financial, legal, medical, and public statement contexts) and when to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups. It also mentions the extra LLM call cost as a concrete tradeoff.

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

All Shodan Internetdb toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research both answer grounded research questions, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all surface prediction-market opportunities. Long descriptions help, but the overlap creates real misselection risk, especially between the ask_pipeworx variants.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear lowercase snake_case verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (lookup_ip, resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). There are minor deviations like noun-first names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and product-branded verbs (ask_pipeworx), but the overall style is consistent enough to predict behavior.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well over the 25-tool threshold where a tool set becomes hard to navigate, and the server named 'Shodan Internetdb' carries only one Shodan-related tool among dozens of Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and utility tools. The count reflects scope sprawl rather than a focused, coherent surface.

Completeness3/5

The broader inferred domain (structured data lookup, entity research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions) is covered surprisingly well, with lifecycle tools for subscriptions and memory. However, there are notable gaps: no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI directly, no equivalent scan coverage for non-NPM ecosystems despite mentioning them, and the Shodan surface is minimal relative to the server name.

Resources