Skip to main content
Glama

Service Scan

service_scan

Fingerprint services on target hosts by scanning specified ports with nmap version detection and safe default NSE scripts, falling back to common web ports when none are provided.

Instructions

[AGGRESSIVE — requires human approval] Fingerprint services on specific ports with nmap -sV plus safe NSE scripts.

scripts is restricted to default/discovery/version/banner. Exploit, dos, brute, malware, intrusive, and safe-as-a-category are refused: the safe category pulls broadcast-* scripts (which crash nmap with the nse_nsock.cc:342 assertion and probe the LAN instead of the target) and http-slowloris-check (which holds connections open and stalls the whole scan at the engagement's rate limit). default is the curated category that fingerprints without either failure mode.

ports defaults to what port_scan already discovered for the requested hosts (the open_port assets in the store) and falls back to the web ports 80,443 only when nothing was discovered. target may name several hosts — the service phase feeds it every host that has an open_port asset, so one nmap pass fingerprints the whole estate instead of the single focus host. The old design scanned one host's 80,443 and silently reported "no services" on every estate that runs on 3000/8080/ 8443 — exactly the ports port_scan exists to find. The chain is ports -> services; services must consume what ports produced.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portsNo
targetYes
scriptsNodefault

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description is transparent about the aggressive nature (requires human approval) and the network-scanning behavior (nmap -sV). It also details specific failure modes of certain script categories. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns or whether it writes results back to the store, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed and dense with essential information, but it is somewhat lengthy and could have been trimmed without losing critical content. Nonetheless, every sentence serves a purpose, explaining defaults, restrictions, and rationale.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description provides complete context for an agent: it explains the dependency on port_scan, the multi-host feed from the service phase, the historical pitfalls of the old design, and the chain relationship. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly integrate the tool into a larger workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the input schema provides no per-parameter descriptions, the tool description fully explains all three parameters: target (may be multiple hosts), ports (defaults to discovered open ports, else 80/443), and scripts (defaults to 'default', with allowed categories specified). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 explicitly states that the tool fingerprints services on specific ports using nmap -sV and safe NSE scripts. It clearly delineates the tool's function from siblings like port_scan and provides a concrete use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives thorough usage instructions: it explains the default ports (from port_scan results, falling back to 80/443), the multiple-host target behavior, and the chain 'ports -> services'. It also warns against certain script categories (safe, exploit, etc.) and explains why, so an agent knows exactly how and when to invoke this tool.

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/iamsecure1920/Cordon-AI'

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