arch-mcp-server

Listening ports

net_ports

Read-onlyIdempotent

List listening TCP/UDP ports with their owning processes to check if a port is up and identify which process holds it.

Instructions

Listening TCP/UDP ports with the owning process. Answers "is the port up?" and "who holds it?".

Tool call template

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": "net_ports"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	No	Only this port
`limit`	No	Ports per page
`proto`	No	Protocol filter	all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results include the owning process, but it does not mention that process attribution may require elevated privileges, nor how results are ordered or paged.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the use-case framing. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only query with a fully documented schema and complete annotations, the definition is largely sufficient. Gaps remain around pagination behavior (the limit param implies paging but truncation is unstated) and privilege requirements for process attribution, which matter for interpreting partial results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (each of port, limit and proto is documented with defaults, ranges and enum), so the schema carries parameter meaning and the baseline applies. The description adds nothing beyond that per-parameter detail, keeping it at the baseline rather than above it is appropriate; no contradiction with the filters exists.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Listening TCP/UDP ports') plus the owning process, and frames the two questions it answers ('is the port up?' / 'who holds it?'). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from process- or filesystem-oriented siblings like proc_list or fs_usage.

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?

The two quoted questions give clear situational guidance: use this for port availability and port-ownership checks. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context itself is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server