Skip to main content
Glama

Shodan Internetdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the neutral annotations (all false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: the claim_token workflow for anonymous filing and later status checks, the rate limit (5 per identifier per day), and the fact that it is free and doesn't count against quota. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is fairly long but front-loaded with purpose and usage, and it structures the claim_token workflow clearly. Most sentences serve a function; the 'daily digests / roadmap' sentence is slightly extraneous but not bloated enough to hurt context. Overall appropriate for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity (4 params, nested object, no required params, no output schema), the description covers the key return behavior (claim_token), the two-phase feedback checking, rate limits, and scope. A minor gap is the behavior when called with no arguments, but this does not undermine practical completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising on message content ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs—don't paste the end-user's prompt') and by showing how to use claim_token, though the schema already covers token semantics. This pushes it above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates exact use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and clarifies it is for feedback, not general questions—clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ask_pipeworx.

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?

Explicit 'Use when...' conditions are given for each feedback type. The description also states when NOT to use it ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection') and directs users to file elsewhere for non-Pipeworx tools, providing clear alternatives. Additional guidance on message framing ('don't paste the end-user's prompt') further strengthens usage clarity.

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