Retrieve detailed information about a specific network scan using its unique ID. Access scan status, results, and configuration to analyze network health.
Get details about a specific network scan
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| netscan_id | Yes | Netscan ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations fully cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description is not required to restate those. The description adds only the mild behavioral implication that a single scan's details are returned, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or other nuances.
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, front-loaded seven-word sentence with no filler, no repetition, and no unnecessary detail. It is optimally sized for a simple getter.
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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is nearly adequate, but the absence of an output schema means the agent cannot tell what 'details' will be returned. It also does not relate itself to get_netscans or run_netscan, leaving some ambiguity about the larger workflow.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with the description 'Netscan ID', which is clear and sufficient. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but none is needed given the full schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('network scan'), and 'specific' clearly signals single-object retrieval rather than listing all scans. This helps distinguish it from get_netscans, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or specify what 'details' include.
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 get_netscans or run_netscan. The word 'specific' implies lookup by ID, but the description does not state when not to use it or which alternate tool handles other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.