Identify listening network ports with their processes to reveal unexpected services and assess server exposure.
List open network ports with associated process information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | No | Remote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention permissions, system impact, or that the optional 'server' parameter allows remote execution. The description is too brief to be transparent.
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 extremely concise (one sentence) with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and omits important details, making it less effective than it could be.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return format or structure. It does not. Additionally, the tool's simple scope (1 optional param) still requires more context for an agent to use it effectively.
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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter's description. Since the description adds no additional parameter-level information, baseline score of 3 applies; no extra 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 clearly states the tool's action ('List'), the resource ('open network ports'), and the included detail ('associated process information'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_scan or system_status.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_scan, system_status). The context of sibling tools suggest overlapping functionality, but the description provides no help in deciding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.