FOFA MCP

by 0day404

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

fofa_search_next

Continue a FOFA cursor query by passing the prior next_token to fetch the next page of results.

Instructions

Continue a FOFA cursor query using the previous response's next_token.

Call only when a prior search returned a next_token. Keep query, fields, and
full unchanged. Pass the returned token and increment cursor_page. Do not
call this repeatedly after next_token is empty. full=true may increase scope
or cost and requires confirm=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`full`	No
`size`	No
`query`	Yes
`fields`	No
`format`	No	standard
`confirm`	No
`task_id`	No	default
`next_token`	No
`request_id`	No
`cursor_page`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: cursor-state rules, parameter-preservation constraints, and that full=true may increase scope or cost and needs confirmation. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and token-expiry/error handling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then concise operational rules. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% input-schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully for a 10-parameter tool; four parameters remain undocumented.

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 0% across 10 parameters. The description adds meaning for next_token, cursor_page, full, confirm, and says query/fields/full should remain unchanged, but leaves size, format, task_id, and request_id undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Continue'), resource ('FOFA cursor query'), and scope ('using the previous response's next_token'). This clearly distinguishes it from the initial search sibling fofa_search.

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 says when to call ('only when a prior search returned a next_token'), when not to call ('Do not call this repeatedly after next_token is empty'), and adds a prerequisite for full=true ('requires confirm=true').

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

Deploy Server