shodan_api_infoRetrieves the authenticated Shodan plan and remaining query and scan credits so you can monitor API usage before running searches or scans.
Show the authenticated plan, query credits remaining, and scan credits remaining.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the response concerns the authenticated account and three specific credit/plan fields, but it does not describe rate limits or response formatting; with annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states what the tool returns without any filler. Every element, including plan, query credits, and scan credits, earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the authenticated context and enumerates the returned credit/plan data. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the exact shape of the plan information, though that is not required for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. This is the baseline 4 case: the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ("Show") and names the resource ("authenticated plan, query credits remaining, and scan credits remaining"), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling account/profile tools such as shodan_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states that the plan is "authenticated," which implies an API-key prerequisite, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-not conditions or named sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.