Skip to main content
Glama

Shodan

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: claim_token flow for later status checks, rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, free/no quota impact, daily digest review, and roadmap influence. No contradictions with annotations (readOnly=false aligns with side effects of submitting feedback).

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage scenarios, exclusions, token behavior, operational details. It's front-loaded with the main action and flows logically without redundancy.

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 feedback tool with 4 parameters, one nested object, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary angles: what, when, how, limitations, and follow-up semantics. It is self-sufficient for an agent to decide, invoke, and interpret the result.

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 already covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds useful context such as how to use claim_token (pass it back with no other arguments) and emphasizes message should be 1-2 sentences and not paste user prompts, enhancing the schema's explanation.

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 states 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist' with specific feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by limiting scope to Pipeworx-served tools only.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...') and when-not-to-use (if the tool came from a different MCP server, file it there instead). Also advises how to phrase feedback (in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, not user prompts).

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