Skip to main content
Glama

Shodan

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Shodan Host

shodan_host
Read-onlyIdempotent

What's exposed on IP — open ports, services, and CVEs. Returns the full Shodan host profile: ports, hostnames, org/ISP, geolocation, OS, known vulnerabilities, and a per-service banner sample. Example: shodan_host({ ip: "8.8.8.8", _apiKey: "your-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 address to look up, e.g. "8.8.8.8"
_apiKeyYesShodan API key (account.shodan.io; paid membership required)
historyNoInclude historical banners (optional, default false)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds behavioral details: it returns a full profile including ports, services, CVEs, etc. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent of the output contents.

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 very concise—two sentences and an example—packed with essential information. No unnecessary words, and the most critical info (purpose, example) appears first.

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 simple read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the purpose, output fields, and an example. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but these are less critical given the tool's nature.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra parameter semantics. The description does not further explain parameters beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: looking up an IP address to discover open ports, services, and CVEs. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full Shodan host profile'), and includes an example. This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'shodan_host_search' and 'shodan_host_count'.

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?

The description provides an example invocation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., shodan_host_search for query-based lookups). The usage context is implied by the name and example, but no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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