Checks which common TCP ports are open on an authorized host, helping identify exposed services during permitted security testing.
Check which common TCP ports are open on a host.
Only call this with authorized=True if the user has confirmed they own the host or have explicit written permission to test it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| ports | No | ||
| authorized | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does add the important safety/authorization precondition and the default of authorized=false. However, nothing is said about scan scope ('common' is undefined), whether the traffic is intrusive or detectable/logged, timeouts, rate limits, or what the result looks like.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with the precondition immediately after; nothing is padding. Minor awkwardness from the mid-sentence line break but no wasted content.
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?
The safety gate is covered, which is the most important gap for a security-scan tool with no annotations and no output schema. But an agent still lacks the operational picture: what 'common ports' means, how to pass `ports`, and what the response contains.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It adds real meaning only for `authorized` (must be true only with confirmed permission); `host` gets no format guidance (IP vs hostname) and the `ports` parameter is never mentioned, with the text even implying a fixed 'common' set.
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?
A specific verb (check) and resource (open TCP ports) on a named target, clearly distinct from the DNS/SSL/CVE siblings. The only blur is 'common TCP ports' versus a `ports` parameter that implies arbitrary port lists.
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?
Explicitly states the precondition for use: call with authorized=True only after the user confirms ownership or written permission. It gives a clear when-to-use gate but never mentions alternatives such as check_ssl or other reconnaissance siblings when the agent's task is adjacent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.