Enumerate all listening network ports to identify active services and potential security exposures.
List listening network ports. Requires network.read permission.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "network_ports"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the network.read permission requirement, which is valuable context. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on the output format, scope (TCP/UDP, interfaces), or any potential side effects, though for a list operation these are less critical.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides an essential permission note. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward read-only list), the description is sufficiently complete. It states the action and the permission requirement. Without richer schema or annotations, there is little additional context an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter info because none exist; there is nothing to compensate for.
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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'listening network ports'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_ping, network_traceroute, and network_dns, which serve different diagnostic purposes.
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios (e.g., checking open ports, troubleshooting connectivity) or contrast with network_ping/traceroute/dns. The only usage-related detail is the permission requirement, which is a precondition, not a context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.