AgentAegis

vuln_scan_network

Scan an IP address or domain to identify open ports, running services, and security vulnerabilities.

Instructions

Scan an IP/domain for open ports, services, and vulnerabilities.

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "scan_type": "<scan_type>"
    },
    "name": "vuln_scan_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`async`	No
`target`	Yes
`scan_type`	Yes
`port_range`	No
`previous_scan_id`	No	Optional. A prior scan_id (from agent_history) to record as this call's parent — builds a traversable chained-workflow lineage retrievable via agent_scan_get. Must be one of your own scans; ignored otherwise. Does not change this tool's analysis.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral context such as potential duration, destructiveness (likely none), required permissions, or rate limits. For a scanning tool, these are important omissions.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but insufficiently informative for a tool with 5 parameters. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, behavior of async, or differences between scan types. The agent lacks enough information to use the tool effectively.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (1 of 5 parameters described in schema). The tool description does not compensate by adding parameter meaning; it does not mention target format, scan_type options, or how async works. The agent must infer semantics from names alone.

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 clearly states the verb 'Scan' and the resources 'IP/domain' and what is found ('open ports, services, and vulnerabilities'). It is specific enough but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'vuln_scan_web_app' or 'sast_scan', which could lead to confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies general usage but does not address exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., vuln_scan_web_app) would be more appropriate.

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