ProjectDiscovery MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fast port scanner' which implies performance characteristics, but lacks details on rate limits, network impact, authentication needs, output format, or error handling. For a scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Fast port scanner') and purpose ('to discover open ports on hosts'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a port scanning tool (which involves network operations and potential side effects), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address critical aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, performance constraints, or security implications, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond the schema's port format example). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('open ports on hosts'), and the adjective 'fast' adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'nuclei' (which might scan for vulnerabilities rather than just ports) or 'httpx' (which might focus on HTTP services), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'nuclei' for vulnerability scanning or 'httpx' for HTTP service detection, leaving the agent without usage context.

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