Run nmap scans against in-scope targets to detect open ports and services, optionally using NSE scripts for vulnerability checks and configurable timing.
Run nmap with optional NSE scripts against an in-scope target (requires nmap).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | No | top | |
| target | Yes | ||
| timing | No | ||
| scripts | No | ||
| service_detection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the external dependency on nmap, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the scan is active/intrusive, whether it respects scope checks, expected runtime, or what the output contains.
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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably too terse given the tool's parameter count, so it stops short of the top mark.
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?
For a 5-parameter active scanning tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is substantially incomplete. An agent must guess at port specification format, timing semantics, and the shape of results before calling it.
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, and the schema supplies only titles and defaults (e.g., ports defaults to 'top', timing defaults to 3). The description only touches the scripts parameter implicitly via 'optional NSE scripts' and never explains accepted ports syntax, timing range, or what service_detection toggles.
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 states a specific verb and tool ('Run nmap') plus the resource ('an in-scope target') and notes NSE script support, so an agent knows exactly what capability is invoked. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings like pentest_vuln_nmap_preset or pentest_recon_portscan, leaving overlap ambiguity.
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 only usage signal is the precondition 'in-scope target' and the runtime dependency '(requires nmap)'. There is no guidance on when to choose this over pentest_vuln_nmap_preset or pentest_recon_portscan, and no statement of when not to use it (e.g., un-scoped hosts, stealth-sensitive engagements).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.