Skip to main content
Glama
CorbettCajun

SpiderFoot MCP Server

Ping

spiderfoot_ping

Verify SpiderFoot server connectivity to ensure reconnaissance tools are operational before initiating OSINT scans.

Instructions

Ping SpiderFoot server to verify it is responding.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:39-43 (registration)
    Registers the 'spiderfoot_ping' MCP tool. Includes input schema (empty) and handler that calls sf.ping() and returns JSON response.
    server.registerTool(
      'spiderfoot_ping',
      { title: 'Ping', description: 'Ping SpiderFoot server to verify it is responding.', inputSchema: {} },
      async () => ({ content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await sf.ping()) }] })
    );
  • Handler function for spiderfoot_ping tool: calls sf.ping() and formats response as MCP content.
    async () => ({ content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await sf.ping()) }] })
  • Tool metadata and input schema (empty object) for spiderfoot_ping.
    'spiderfoot_ping',
    { title: 'Ping', description: 'Ping SpiderFoot server to verify it is responding.', inputSchema: {} },
  • SpiderfootClient.ping() method: proxies GET request to Spiderfoot server's /ping endpoint.
    async ping() {
      const { data } = await this.http.get('/ping');
      return data;
    }
  • Identical registration of 'spiderfoot_ping' tool in the HTTP server variant.
    server.registerTool(
      'spiderfoot_ping',
      { title: 'Ping', description: 'Ping SpiderFoot server to verify it is responding.', inputSchema: {} },
      async () => ({ content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await sf.ping()) }] })
    );
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of checking server response, which is appropriate for a ping operation. However, it lacks details like expected response format, timeout behavior, or error handling, which could enhance transparency for an agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Ping SpiderFoot server to verify it is responding') earns its place by clearly conveying the tool's function in a minimal format.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a basic ping operation. It covers the core purpose and context. However, without an output schema, adding a hint about the response (e.g., success/failure status) could improve completeness for agent use.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the zero-parameter case without redundancy.

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 specific action ('Ping') and target resource ('SpiderFoot server') with the explicit purpose of 'verify it is responding.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'spiderfoot_start_scan' or 'spiderfoot_scan_data' by focusing on server availability rather than operational tasks.

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 implies usage context for verifying server responsiveness, which is clear for a ping tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using other tools only after confirming server availability, leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CorbettCajun/Spiderfoot-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server