Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copilot Desktop MCP

Copilot Desktop MCP

by avianhermana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Tcp Port Check

tcp_port_check
Read-only

Checks whether a TCP port is open and listening on a target host, helping diagnose connectivity issues before connecting to services.

Instructions

Check whether a TCP port is open and listening on a target 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>",
      "port": "<port>"
    },
    "name": "tcp_port_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYes
portYes
timeoutNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with 'check', and the description does not contradict it. Beyond that, it adds little behavioral context: it does not say what counts as 'open' (e.g. TCP connect success), that the check fails fast on refusal, or anything about timeouts or blocking behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the usage or parameter detail this tool needs.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values and result shape need not be explained. For a simple three-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but with zero schema descriptions the missing semantics for host, port, and timeout leave a real gap.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must supply meaning and it does not. It never states host format (name vs IP vs URL), port range expectations, or that timeout is in seconds and defaults to 3.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: check whether a TCP port is open and listening on a target host. That is clearly distinct from ping_host or dns_lookup by the TCP-port framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 scenario is implied by 'open and listening on a target host', so an agent can infer this is for reachability checks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on when to prefer ping_host or dns_lookup over this tool.

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