Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
local-network-mcp

local-network-mcp

by ahmed-hashim-pro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scan_ports

Scan a host's specified ports to determine which are open and reveal available services for network diagnostics.

Instructions

Scan multiple ports on a specific host

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "ports": "<ports>"
    },
    "name": "scan_ports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesIP address or hostname
portsYesList of port numbers to scan (e.g., [80, 443, 22, 8080])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only says 'scan multiple ports' without explaining what the tool returns (open vs closed ports), whether it performs a TCP connect scan, timeout behavior, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a network scanning tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the essential action and scope. It contains no filler, is easy to parse, and is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is straightforward but has no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what the scan results look like or how they are presented. It does not. Additional context about scanning behavior, failure cases, or special host formats would be needed for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both host and ports. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Scan') and a specific resource ('multiple ports on a specific host'), which makes the tool's basic purpose obvious. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like check_port (single port) and scan_network (network-wide), but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when multiple ports on a single host need scanning. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over check_port or scan_network, and no exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools