mcp-toolbelt

check_open_ports

TCP-connect scan a host for open ports, plus network intel on the host's resolved IPs (ASN, network owner, BGP prefix, country — via Team Cymru). 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.

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": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "check_open_ports"
  }
}

Input Schema

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the scan technique (TCP-connect, i.e. non-stealthy), the default common-ports behavior, the 100-port cap, and the Team Cymru enrichment source, but omits timing, rate limits, and what the returned results contain.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its enrichment, then defaults and the cap constraint. The em-dash aside is slightly dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, enrichment, defaults, and limits well. It leaves return shape and scanning caveats implicit, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, which sets a baseline of 3. The description only slightly enriches this by illustrating what 'common ports' means (SSH, HTTP/S, mail, DBs) and restating the 100-port cap; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('TCP-connect scan a host for open ports') and adds a second concrete deliverable (network intel: ASN, network owner, BGP prefix, country). No sibling performs port scanning, so the agent can differentiate it immediately from the surrounding security/network tools.

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?

Provides clear context ('For checking your own infrastructure's exposure') that also implies authorization intent. It does not name when-not-to-use or an alternative, but with no sibling overlap on port scanning, the practical routing risk is low.

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

All mcp-toolbelt tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?