Scan target domains or IPs for open ports using nmap. Choose quick, common, or full scan ranges to identify exposed services for security reconnaissance.
端口扫描（使用 nmap）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | No | 端口范围（如 "1-1000" 或 "80,443,8080"） | |
| target | Yes | 目标（域名/IP） | |
| scan_type | No | quick=top100, common=top1000, full=1-65535 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds that nmap is used, without explaining that this is an active network scan, potential side effects, rate-limit implications, or what the result will look like.
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, short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is easy to parse and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits when this tool is preferred over port-scan-lite, the meaning of the scan_type values, expected output, and any behavioral considerations.
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 100%, with target, ports, and scan_type already explained in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score is appropriate.
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 'port scanning (using nmap)', identifying the operation (scan) and resource (ports) plus the underlying engine. It is clear but does not differentiate this tool from sibling port-scan-lite or other scan-related tools.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like port-scan-lite, web-fingerprint, or enumerate-subdomains. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.