TCP-connect scan a host for open ports. Defaults to a list of ~20 common service ports (SSH, HTTP/S, mail, DBs, etc.) if none are given. For checking your own infrastructure's exposure — capped at 100 ports per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Hostname or IP to scan (no scheme) | |
| ports | No | Specific ports to check. Defaults to a common-ports list. Max 100 ports per call. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an active TCP-connect scan, that it defaults to a curated ~20-port common-services list, and that each call is capped at 100 ports. This is meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the core action and then give defaults, intended scope, and the call limit. There is no filler and every sentence 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?
For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, defaults, and limits. The only notable gap is the lack of an output schema and no explicit statement about the response shape, though 'scan for open ports' adequately implies the result.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful color by naming common port categories, but the parameter meanings are already fully documented in 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?
States an exact operation — 'TCP-connect scan a host for open ports' — with a clear resource and method. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling checks like ssl_cert_check or security_headers_audit.
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?
Provides a clear use context: checking your own infrastructure's exposure, plus default behavior when ports are omitted. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the tool's niche is distinct enough among the siblings and the 100-port cap conveys practical constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools audit overlapping site signals (seo_audit vs structured_data_extract vs tech_stack_fingerprint; page_performance_check vs pagespeed_insights; ssl_cert_check vs ssl_labs_grade; broken_link_check vs sitemap_url_validator), so an agent could initially pick the wrong one. Descriptions usually clarify the distinction, but the boundaries are not always obvious.
Most names follow a snake_case target+operation pattern (ssl_cert_check, email_deliverability_check), but check_open_ports and check_robots_sitemap reverse the order, and the action suffixes vary widely (check, audit, validate, lookup, extract, grade, report, insights). Still readable, but not a single predictable convention.
At 29 tools, the server is above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an undifferentiated grab bag of single-purpose audits rather than a tightly scoped toolkit. Many checks could be consolidated (e.g. the separate SSL and performance tools, or domain_report versus its component checks).
For a web/domain/email/security diagnostics toolbelt, the coverage is unusually broad: DNS, TLS, email, SEO, structured data, vulnerabilities, ports, redirects, and more are all represented. Minor gaps exist (no generic HTTP request/debug tool, no zone-transfer or full WHOIS history), but agents can accomplish most diagnostic workflows without hitting dead ends.