Skip to main content
Glama

Shodan

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Shodan Host Count

shodan_host_count
Read-onlyIdempotent

Count hosts matching with facet breakdown (free — this endpoint does not consume query credits). Returns the total match count plus optional facet aggregations (e.g. top countries, orgs, ports). Example: shodan_host_count({ query: "apache", facets: "country:10", _apiKey: "your-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesShodan search query, e.g. "apache" or "port:443 country:DE"
facetsNoComma-separated facets for aggregation, e.g. "country:10" or "org:5,port:5" (optional)
_apiKeyYesShodan API key (account.shodan.io; paid membership required)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: 'free — this endpoint does not consume query credits' and describes the return format. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and free aspect, second explains return, example clarifies usage. 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?

For a count endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (match count + optional facets) and API key requirements. It covers all needed context.

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 description coverage is 100% with good descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds a concrete example showing usage of query, facets, and _apiKey, which aids understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 function: 'Count hosts matching <query> with facet breakdown'. It specifies the verb 'Count' and resource 'hosts', and distinguishes from sibling tools like shodan_host_search by emphasizing it's a count endpoint that is free (no query credits).

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?

The description indicates when to use this tool (to get counts and facets) and highlights it's free, implying preference over siblings for counting. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid alternative tools like shodan_host_search, which would be needed for a 5.

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