FOFA MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fofa_search_structured

Build a FOFA query from structured domain, IP, port, host, body, icon hash, ICP, or status code inputs, then run one page without manually composing DSL.

Instructions

Build a FOFA query from common conditions and run one page.

Use this instead of manually composing DSL for domain, IP, port, host, body,
icon hash, ICP, or status code inputs. Continue only with fofa_search_next
when the result explicitly provides has_more=true and next_token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ip`	No
`icp`	No
`body`	No
`host`	No
`page`	No
`port`	No
`size`	No
`domain`	No
`fields`	No
`format`	No	standard
`confirm`	No
`task_id`	No	default
`icon_hash`	No
`request_id`	No
`status_code`	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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface the pagination contract (one page only, has_more/next_token handoff), which is genuinely useful. However, for a 15-param tool it says nothing about the 'confirm' gate, quota/cost, auth requirements, or what page/size/format do operationally.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the routing rule. No filler; every clause carries load-bearing information.

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 needn't be explained, and the routing/pagination story is complete. But with 15 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves the confirmation gate and operational controls (page, size, format, task_id) unaddressed for a tool this broad.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does map eight conditions (domain, IP, port, host, body, icon hash, ICP, status code) to query-builder inputs. It adds no meaning for page, size, fields, format, confirm, task_id, or request_id, leaving nearly half the parameters opaque.

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 and resource: build a FOFA query from structured conditions and run one page. It explicitly contrasts itself with the manual-DSL sibling (fofa_search) and the pagination sibling (fofa_search_next), so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this instead of manually composing DSL for domain, IP, port...') and a precise continuation condition ('Continue only with fofa_search_next when the result explicitly provides has_more=true and next_token'). Both the alternative and the triggering condition are named.

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

Deploy Server