Check local proxy ports for TCP reachability, defaulting to common proxy ports, with optional port overrides to diagnose connectivity issues.
Probe local proxy ports for TCP reachability. Defaults to the common ports (10808, 10809, 7890, 7897, 8888, 1080); pass ports to override.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | No | Ports to probe (default 10808, 10809, 7890, 7897, 8888, 1080) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions default ports and override behavior, but that is already in the schema, and it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what the output of the probe 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?
The description is a single, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose before providing the default behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail.
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 description explains what the tool does and its defaults, but omits the return value or output semantics, which matters given there is no output schema. It also does not clarify the relationship to the closely named sibling `net_proxy_status`, leaving the agent to infer competition.
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 only parameter, `ports`, is fully described in the schema with a default list, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds the nuance that passing `ports` overrides the defaults, but this is minimal added value beyond the schema.
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 states a clear verb (probe), resource (local proxy ports), and purpose (TCP reachability), making the tool's function distinct. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like net_proxy_status, but the mention of local ports and defaults narrows its scope.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like net_proxy_status or net_diag. The description implies usage for checking local proxy port reachability but does not state when not to use it or provide any selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.