shodan_internetdbEnrich IP addresses with free, keyless data on open ports, hostnames, tags, CPEs, and CVE IDs; accepts one IP or up to 25 comma-separated IPs.
Free, keyless IP enrichment from internetdb.shodan.io: ports, CPEs, hostnames, tags, and CVE ids. Weekly data, no banners. Accepts a single IP or a comma-separated list (max 25).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4/IPv6 address, or comma-separated list of IPs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding non-obvious traits beyond them: no API key required, weekly staleness of data, and no banner data returned. These materially shape expectations.
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?
One dense sentence plus a scope note, both front-loaded with the essentials (source, fields, keylessness, staleness) and no wasted phrasing.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates return fields (ports, CPEs, hostnames, tags, CVE ids) and flags data limitations. Only the absence of an explicit sibling comparison keeps it from a 5.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'ip' parameter, so the baseline is high; the description adds value by supplying the comma-separated list limit (max 25), which the schema itself does not state.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('IP enrichment from internetdb.shodan.io') and enumerates the returned fields. The 'Free, keyless' framing implicitly distinguishes it from key-based siblings like shodan_host, but it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'free, keyless' hints at when to prefer this over paid host lookups, and the max-25 list cap is a practical constraint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named sibling alternative such as shodan_host.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.