Scans eNSP device Telnet ports (default 2000-2100) to find reachable lab devices and returns each host with its open ports.
扫描 eNSP 设备的 Telnet 端口（默认 2000-2100）。
返回 {"host": str, "ports": [int, ...]}。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| port_end | No | ||
| port_start | No | ||
| max_workers | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape but not the scan's behavior — no mention of concurrency via max_workers, timeout behavior, whether it blocks, or the cost of scanning up to 100 ports.
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?
Very short and front-loaded: one sentence for the purpose followed by the return contract. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. But with zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage on 5 parameters, and no usage guidance, an agent lacks enough context to invoke this correctly.
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 0% across 5 parameters — host, timeout, port_start, port_end, and max_workers are all undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description mentions only the default port range, leaving host resolution, timeout units, and worker-count semantics completely unexplained.
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 and resource: scanning Telnet ports of eNSP devices, with a default range (2000-2100). This clearly distinguishes it from connection-oriented siblings like ensp_connect_device or command-execution tools, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 guidance on when to use this scan versus, say, ensp_connect_device or ensp_get_device_info. The natural discovery workflow (scan first, then connect) is left for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.