nmap_scanScan target hosts and port ranges to identify open services and support network diagnostics. Set a target, optional ports, scan type, and timeout for controlled discovery.
Scan network using nmap
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | No | Port range (e.g., '22,80,443') | |
| target | Yes | Target host or network | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| scan_type | No | Scan type | basic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about privilege/root requirements, intrusiveness, detection risk, legality, or that a scan can block up to the 300-second default timeout. Only the implied fact that it is active network probing is conveyed.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; there is no useful content front-loaded beyond the restated name.
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 4-parameter active-scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a scan does, what it returns, and how to choose scan_type and ports. None of that is present, leaving an agent to infer behavior entirely from field names.
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%, so target, ports, timeout, and scan_type are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds nothing further, and notably does not clarify the meaning or allowed values of the unenumerated scan_type field.
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?
"Scan network using nmap" largely restates the name and title (Nmap Scan) without adding specificity. It shares a near-identical purpose with siblings like port_scan and service_enumeration, and nothing in the text says how this tool differs from them.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus port_scan, service_enumeration, or service_discovery, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only loosely implied by the word "network".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.