sm_network_operationsPerforms network diagnostics by listing interfaces and open ports, pinging hosts, and resolving DNS to troubleshoot connectivity issues.
Operations for network analysis
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Host to ping or lookup | |
| count | No | Ping count | |
| action | Yes | Action to perform. Must be one of: 'list_network_interfaces', 'list_open_ports', 'ping_host', 'dns_lookup' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions (raw sockets for ping, privileged port enumeration), timeouts, or whether any action mutates state. The word "analysis" faintly implies read-only behavior but that is left implicit rather than stated.
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?
Five words with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing substantive is said; it is short without being informative.
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?
This is a multi-action tool (four distinct operations) with no annotations and no output schema, meaning the description is the only place behavior could be explained. Instead it leaves the agent needing to read the schema to learn what the tool even does and to guess at side effects and return shapes.
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 100% and the action enum values, host, and count defaults are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or conditional meaning (e.g., which actions require host, or that count is ignored by non-ping actions), so baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Operations for network analysis" restates the tool name and the resource category without naming a single concrete operation. The four actual actions (interface listing, port listing, ping, DNS lookup) only appear in the schema, so the description does nothing to distinguish this from siblings such as get_network_connections or sm_firewall_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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_network_connections (also network-related) or the other sm_* operation families. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no scenario guidance — the agent must infer usage entirely from the action enum in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.