Retrieve the container process table and active network connections to inspect running workloads and open sockets during authorized security assessments.
Return the container process table and active network connections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_connections | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only snapshot but does not state permission requirements, whether it runs inside a container or against the host, side effects, or any rate/safety constraints.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states exactly what is returned with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple snapshot operation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the scope (process table + connections) is clear. However, with no annotations and no usage context, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to decide when and why to invoke it.
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 0% for the single boolean 'include_connections' parameter. The description's mention of 'active network connections' hints at what the flag toggles, giving marginal added value, but it never explains the default-on behavior or what happens when set to false.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('container process table and active network connections'), which is concrete and self-explanatory. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling or clarify its niche within the large security-tooling set.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. An agent gets no signal about what scenario this snapshot is meant to serve (e.g., container escape recon vs. host triage).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.