shodan_servicesRetrieve the mapping of port numbers to named services used by Shodan crawlers to interpret scan results and identify services running on detected ports.
Map of port to named service for Shodan crawlers.
| 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that the data is a port-to-service map from Shodan crawlers; it does not discuss freshness, completeness, rate limits, or response shape beyond the one-line purpose.
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 with no wasted words. That is appropriately terse for a zero-parameter lookup tool.
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 simple zero-parameter lookup with rich annotations, the description identifies the returned mapping but omits routing guidance and any explicit statement of response format. It is adequate, but with clear gaps.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to compensate for. This matches the baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools.
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 states a specific resource—a mapping from port to named service—and scopes it to Shodan crawlers, so the agent knows what data it returns. However, it does not distinguish this lookup from sibling reference tools such as shodan_ports or shodan_protocols, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The only context is 'for Shodan crawlers,' which does not tell the agent whether to call this instead of shodan_ports or another sibling reference tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.