Lists a device's ports with state, IPv4 address, and connections. Use it to find free ports before connecting.
List a device's ports with their state, IPv4 address when they have one, and what each port is connected to. Use it to pick free ports before connect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | Device name as shown by `list_devices`. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | Yes | ||
| device | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that this is a state-inspection read but adds no behavioral detail such as ordering, pagination, or error behavior for unknown devices. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the usage hint second. Every clause earns its place by describing distinct returned fields.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be repeated, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The definition is sufficient for correct invocation, with only minor room to note how a device name is discovered or resolved.
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% — the 'device' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Device name as shown by list_devices.' The description adds no further semantics about this parameter, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List a device's ports') and enumerates what each entry contains (state, IPv4, connections), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearest lookalike sibling (list_slots), so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
Gives a concrete use case: 'Use it to pick free ports before connect,' which names the sibling tool (connect) whose precondition it serves. It stops short of a 5 because it offers no when-not guidance or statement about ports that are already occupied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.