Skip to main content
Glama
CorbettCajun

SpiderFoot MCP Server

Scan Info

spiderfoot_scan_info

Retrieve metadata and configuration details for a specific SpiderFoot OSINT scan using its scan ID to analyze reconnaissance data.

Instructions

Retrieve scan metadata/config for a scan ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:63-67 (registration)
    Registration of the 'spiderfoot_scan_info' tool, including inline schema { id: z.string() }, handler that destructures 'id' and returns JSON of sf.scanInfo(id).
    server.registerTool(
      'spiderfoot_scan_info',
      { title: 'Scan Info', description: 'Retrieve scan metadata/config for a scan ID.', inputSchema: { id: z.string() } },
      async ({ id }) => ({ content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await sf.scanInfo(id)) }] })
    );
  • Core implementation of scanInfo: performs HTTP GET to SpiderFoot API endpoint '/scanopts?id={id}' and returns the data response.
    async scanInfo(id: string) {
      const { data } = await this.http.get('/scanopts', { params: { id } });
      return data;
    }
  • HTTP variant registration of the 'spiderfoot_scan_info' tool, identical to stdio version, with inline schema and handler.
    server.registerTool(
      'spiderfoot_scan_info',
      { title: 'Scan Info', description: 'Retrieve scan metadata/config for a scan ID.', inputSchema: { id: z.string() } },
      async ({ id }) => ({ content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await sf.scanInfo(id)) }] })
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata/config, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a top score for brevity and structure.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving metadata/config), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a real-world scenario.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds minimal value by implying 'id' refers to a scan ID, but does not explain format, constraints, or examples. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('scan metadata/config for a scan ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spiderfoot_scans' or 'spiderfoot_scan_data', which might also retrieve scan-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as distinguishing it from 'spiderfoot_scans' (which might list scans) or 'spiderfoot_scan_data' (which might retrieve actual scan results). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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