ss_connectionsList network connections using ss with optional filters for connection state and protocol to inspect TCP/UDP sockets and diagnose connectivity issues.
Show network connections using ss
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | Connection state | |
| protocol | No | Protocol (tcp/udp) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only local diagnostic, what the output looks like, or whether elevated privileges affect what connections are visible; only the bare operation is named.
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 sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain return shape and behavioral constraints for a 2-parameter diagnostic tool. It says nothing about output columns, filtering behavior when parameters are null, or how it relates to the near-identical netstat_connections sibling.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning such as accepted state values (ESTAB, LISTEN, TIME-WAIT) or protocol casing, which would have helped since no enums are defined.
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 ('Show') and resource ('network connections') and names the underlying utility ('ss'), so the purpose is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling netstat_connections, which appears to do the same job via a different command.
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 guidance on when to use this versus netstat_connections, nor any prerequisites (root privileges, ss availability). The agent is left to guess which of the two connection-listing tools to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.