Check if TCP ports on a target host are open by performing a simple connection test, helping identify exposed services during reconnaissance.
简单端口扫描（TCP 连接测试）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | 目标主机 | |
| ports | Yes | 端口列表（如 [80, 443, 8080]） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core mechanism ('TCP connection test'), which implies a connect-style scan without raw sockets. However, without annotations, it does not mention rate limits, potential security system triggers, or whether advanced privileges are needed, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.
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 extremely short and front-loaded with the core action and mechanism. There is no wasted text, though the brevity contributes to missing guidance and behavioral context.
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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not define return values, the limitations of the 'lite' variant, or any authorization expectations. An agent could invoke it, but might not know which sibling to select or how to interpret the results.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema fully documents both host and ports with an example, so the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 resource: 'simple port scan (TCP connection test)', which clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'port-scan' beyond the 'lite' name and the word 'simple', so it lacks robust sibling differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool versus the full 'port-scan' or other lite variants. The description provides no context about scenarios where the lite version is preferable, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.