Fetch open ports, hostnames, CPEs, tags, and known CVEs for any IP address using Shodan's free InternetDB—no API key required. Ideal for quick passive reconnaissance.
Open ports, hostnames, CPEs, tags and known CVEs for an IP from Shodan's free InternetDB (no API key, data can be a few days old).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently notes that data can be a few days old and requires no API key, which are key behavioral traits. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read-only lookup this is adequate.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary outputs, then notes the source and caveat. There is zero waste, and all information 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?
Given the low complexity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned, the data source, and the staleness caveat. Missing details like error handling or rate limits are minor for a tool of this simplicity.
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 single parameter 'ip' is a string with no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds that the tool works on an IP but does not specify format (IPv4/IPv6) or any validation. Since the parameter name and description align, meaning is clear, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 (open ports, hostnames, CPEs, tags, known CVEs) and the target (an IP), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are domain-oriented. It also names the source (Shodan's InternetDB) and the condition (free, no API key), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 clearly implies usage for IP-based reconnaissance and highlights the free/no-key aspect, which differentiates it from paid or key-requiring alternatives. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident given the sibling set (mostly domain tools).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.