shodan_notifier_createCreate a Shodan notifier for network alerts by specifying a provider and its required fields, such as an email address, so alerts reach the destination you choose.
Create a notifier. Provider-specific fields go in args (e.g. to=email@domain for email).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful convention that provider-specific fields belong in args and gives an email example, but says nothing about authentication, return values, or failure behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the most important argument convention. There is no filler or repetition.
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 creation tool with a free-form nested args object, the description is thin. It omits the relation to alerts, how to discover providers, and what happens on success; with no output schema, that missing return context matters.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the nested args object with an example, but does not clarify where valid provider values come from or what the top-level description parameter is used for.
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 and resource: 'Create a notifier.' It is distinguishable from sibling read/delete/list notifier tools by name, but the description never explains what a notifier is (e.g. a notification channel used by alerts), so an agent new to Shodan must infer its role.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus shodan_alert_add_notifier or shodan_notifier_providers. It also omits the obvious prerequisite of discovering valid providers first, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.