Runs Nmap scans with curated presets for web, SMB, database, mail, remote, and full-safe checks on authorized targets.
Run nmap with a curated preset: web, smb, db, mail, remote, full-safe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| timing | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It does not disclose that this sends live network traffic to the target, that presets differ in intrusiveness ('full-safe' implies others are not safe), whether it needs scope authorization, how long scans take, or what timing controls. Only the preset names hint at behavior.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and the option list appended; nothing is redundant. The word 'curated' is mildly promotional and carries no operational meaning, but otherwise the sentence earns its place.
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 network-scanning tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this is too thin. An agent still cannot tell whether the call is safe, whether scope checking is required, what 'target' accepts, or how 'timing' affects the scan, all of which the description should supply.
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 three parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add the most important missing information by enumerating the valid preset values (web, smb, db, mail, remote, full-safe), which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string, but 'target' format and the 'timing' parameter (default 3) are left entirely undocumented.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run nmap') plus the distinguishing mechanism ('curated preset') and enumerates the six presets. That lets an agent tell it apart from the raw sibling pentest_vuln_nmap and from pentest_recon_portscan, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over pentest_vuln_nmap (raw flags), pentest_recon_portscan, or pentest_vuln_nuclei, and nothing says when a preset is inappropriate. The reader must infer that 'curated preset' means a shortcut for common service classes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.