Skip to main content
Glama
CorbettCajun

SpiderFoot MCP Server

Scans

spiderfoot_scans

List and manage all SpiderFoot OSINT reconnaissance scans, both active and completed, to track investigation progress and access collected data.

Instructions

List all scans (past and present).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:57-61 (registration)
    Registers the 'spiderfoot_scans' MCP tool. Includes empty input schema and an inline handler function that calls sf.scans() to list all scans and returns the JSON-stringified result as text content.
    server.registerTool(
      'spiderfoot_scans',
      { title: 'Scans', description: 'List all scans (past and present).', inputSchema: {} },
      async () => ({ content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await sf.scans()) }] })
    );
  • The supporting 'scans()' method in SpiderfootClient class, which performs a GET request to the Spiderfoot API endpoint '/scanlist' to retrieve the list of all scans.
    async scans() {
      const { data } = await this.http.get('/scanlist');
      return data;
    }
  • Identical registration of the 'spiderfoot_scans' tool in the HTTP server variant of the MCP server.
    server.registerTool(
      'spiderfoot_scans',
      { title: 'Scans', description: 'List all scans (past and present).', inputSchema: {} },
      async () => ({ content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await sf.scans()) }] })
    );
  • Factory function to create the SpiderfootClient instance (sf) from environment variables, used by the tool handler.
    export function makeSpiderfootClientFromEnv() {
      const baseUrl = process.env.SPIDERFOOT_BASE_URL || 'http://127.0.0.1:5001';
      const username = process.env.SPIDERFOOT_USER;
      const password = process.env.SPIDERFOOT_PASS;
      return new SpiderfootClient({ baseUrl, username, password });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists scans but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it includes pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values include (e.g., scan IDs, statuses, timestamps) or any behavioral context like pagination. For a tool that lists data, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

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 doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have hinted at implicit parameters like filtering options. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all scans'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'spiderfoot_scan_info' or 'spiderfoot_scan_data', which might also retrieve scan 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. With siblings like 'spiderfoot_scan_info' or 'spiderfoot_scan_data' that might retrieve specific scan details, there's no indication of scope (e.g., this lists all scans broadly vs. others for detailed data), leaving usage ambiguous.

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