Skip to main content
Glama

Shodan

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Input Schema

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

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and open-world annotations, the description discloses that candidates may be enabled live, that none is currently active, that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx, and that this is a full working router rather than a fallback. This is valuable volatile 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the beta identity and tool equivalence, and each sentence adds relevant operational context. The retired-candidate date is more detail than strictly necessary, but it supports the claim that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx.

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?

For a routing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, how it differs from the stable version, when to choose it, and its current state. It relies on ask_pipeworx for the actual response shape, which is reasonable given the sibling relationship, but a direct shape description would be more self-contained.

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%, and the parameters are aliases for the single required question field, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, adding no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes this tool from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing-improvement role, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly spell out a when-not condition such as preferring stable ask_pipeworx for production, though that is implied by 'beta'.

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

All Shodan 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server name 'Shodan' misleadingly implies a narrow focus on network security scanning, yet the tool set includes many unrelated tools for data lookup (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, etc.), memory management, and subscriptions. Within the pipeworx tools, there is overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which can confuse agents about which to choose.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some use underscores (ai_visibility_check, shodan_host), others use lowercased phrases without clear partitioning (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile). Verb-noun patterns are inconsistent (e.g., 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' vs 'compare_entities'). This lack of a predictable naming scheme increases cognitive load.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools covering distinct domains (Shodan scanning, pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions), the server feels overloaded and unfocused. While each tool may individually be useful, the bundling contradicts the principle of a single-purpose server. A more appropriate count for a focused Shodan server would be under 10 tools.

Completeness2/5

For the Shodan domain, only three tools are provided (host, host_count, host_search), missing key capabilities like DNS lookups, vulnerability search, or API key management. The pipeworx tool set is extensive but not the server's advertised purpose, leaving gaps in both areas. The addition of memory and subscription tools adds unrelated functionality without completing any single domain.

Resources