get_network_connectionsMaps active TCP/UDP endpoints directly to owning processes to identify which service or application is using a network port or connection.
Maps active TCP/UDP endpoints directly to owning processes.
CONCEPT:SM-OS.deployment.deep-introspection-telemetry: Deep Introspection Telemetry
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that it reports active connections and associates them with owning processes, but it does not describe freshness, OS scope, or limitations of the mapping.
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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the tool's core behavior. The appended CONCEPT metadata line is cryptic and does not clearly help an agent decide how to invoke the tool, so it weakens the structure without adding much value.
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?
For a no-parameter, read-only introspection tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what is being inspected, though it could say more about the scope of 'active' connections and any platform constraints.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline score of 4 applies because the schema and empty parameter set require no additional explanation.
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 specific verb and resource: it maps active TCP/UDP endpoints to owning processes. That is clear and distinguishable from broad service or storage tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the network-oriented sibling sm_network_operations.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sm_network_operations or get_process_details. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement, with no exclusions or routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.