Scans TCP connections and banners on common or custom ranges for authorized targets, helping identify exposed network services and support attack-surface reconnaissance.
Scan TCP connect + bannières sur les ports courants. Cible autorisée uniquement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | No | 'default' ou ex. 80,443,8000-8100 | |
| target | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It reveals the technique (TCP connect) and that banners are collected, but says nothing about noise/rate, whether the scan is logged by the target, timeouts, or what a result contains. The authorization note is the only behavioral guardrail.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety constraint; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why the other dimensions are thin.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undescribed required 'target' parameter, the description should explain the return shape (open ports plus banners) and how results are bounded. It instead stops at the action and a legal caveat, leaving an agent unable to predict output or side effects.
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 coverage is 50%: 'ports' is documented with a 'default' sentinel and a range example, while 'target' has no schema description. The description's phrase "ports courants" weakly reinforces the default behavior, but it adds no format or constraint detail for 'target' beyond the authorization caveat.
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 concrete verb and resource: a TCP connect scan with banner grabbing against common ports. That is enough for an agent to know it is a port-scanning tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'probe', which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
"Cible autorisée uniquement" is an authorization prerequisite, not usage guidance: it says who may be scanned, not when to pick this tool over probe/dirs/tmpl/kev. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative routing, so the agent must infer that 'probe' covers whatever this does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.