Combines exposed listeners, firewall state, and risky ports into actionable security findings to identify network exposure risks.
Composite security report: exposed listeners × firewall state × risky ports ⇒ Finding[].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it barely does: it doesn't say whether the tool actively probes targets or only aggregates existing/local state, whether it requires elevated privileges to read firewall configuration, how long it takes, or whether it is read-only. The only behavioral hint is the implied read-only 'report', which is thin for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded line with no filler; the × and ⇒ notation compresses 'correlates these inputs into findings' efficiently. Nothing to trim.
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 zero-param aggregate tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a Finding contains and how the correlation is scoped (local host? LAN? current snapshot?), since there is no schema to fall back on. Naming 'Finding[]' without any description of its fields leaves a real gap.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter meaning that doesn't exist.
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?
States a specific resource (a composite security report) and enumerates the three inputs it correlates: exposed listeners, firewall state, risky ports. That distinguishes it from the single-signal siblings sec.listening and sec.firewall. It stops short of a plain verb but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 word 'composite' implies this is for an aggregate posture assessment rather than a single check, which weakly routes the agent away from sec.listening/sec.firewall. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus those siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.