CVE MCP Server

by mukul975

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

shodan_host_lookup

Look up an IPv4 address on Shodan to identify open ports, running services, operating system, and related CVEs.

Instructions

Look up a host on Shodan: open ports, running services, OS, CVEs on the host. Requires SHODAN_KEY environment variable.

Args: ip: IPv4 address to look up (e.g. 8.8.8.8)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "shodan_host_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is a lookup (read-only) and requires an environment variable, but does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or safety assurances. While likely safe, the description could be more explicit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is very concise: two sentences covering purpose, and a clear argument specification. It is front-loaded with the key functionality and has no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its prerequisite. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. Slight improvement could include mention of JSON output format.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable context: 'ip: IPv4 address to look up (e.g. 8.8.8.8)'. This clarifies the expected format and provides an example, going beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool looks up a host on Shodan, listing open ports, services, OS, and CVEs. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_intel or lookup_cve, which focus on different entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It mentions the required SHODAN_KEY environment variable, which is essential context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like passive_dns_lookup or search_cves, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.