port_scanPerform a bounded TCP connect scan on one authorized host to find open ports and ranges for bug bounty reconnaissance.
Perform a bounded TCP connect scan against one authorized host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | No | Comma-separated ports/ranges, e.g. 80,443,8000-8010 | |
| target | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| open_ports | Yes | ||
| ports_scanned | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: the scan is 'bounded' and limited to 'one authorized host'. It says nothing about rate limits, timeouts, default port range, or what happens on an unauthorized target.
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 zero filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for an open-world network scan with a 50%-covered schema, the description omits defaults for the optional 'ports' parameter and any operational caveats (timeouts, throttling), leaving the agent with an incomplete operational picture.
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?
Coverage is 50%: the 'ports' schema description already supplies the comma-separated range syntax and an example, while 'target' has no schema description at all. The phrase 'one authorized host' does clarify that target is a single host rather than a list, adding a little meaning, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: a 'TCP connect scan' (as opposed to SYN or UDP) against a host. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like ssl_scan or http_probe by naming the scan technique, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one authorized host' signals the single-target, permissioned context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over ssl_scan, http_probe, or http_method_analysis, nor any explicit exclusion. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.