Maps network probe or scan candidates to one-click mcp_add drafts with protocol, name, config, and confidence; pass candidates or a host to scan first.
Map probe/scan candidates to one-click mcp_add drafts (protocol, name, config, confidence). Pass candidates or a host to scan first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| port | No | ||
| https | No | ||
| protocols | No | ||
| candidates | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the output shape (protocol, name, config, confidence) and that results are drafts rather than applied changes — meaningful since there is no output schema.
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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action before the input hint. It is efficient, though the input hint is compressed to the point of being ambiguous.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no required-parameter guidance, the description leaves three inputs (port, https, protocols) undocumented and never explains how candidates vs. host interplay. It is too thin to fully equip an agent to call this correctly.
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% for 5 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only touches two inputs ('candidates or a host'); port, https, and protocols are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a concrete transformation: mapping probe/scan candidates into 'one-click mcp_add drafts' with named fields (protocol, name, config, confidence). This distinguishes it from mcp_add (which applies) and from discovery_probe/discovery_scan_host (which produce raw candidates), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
'Pass candidates or a host to scan first' implies the precondition that you need prior probe/scan results, and hints at the input mode. But it does not say when to choose this over discovery_probe, discovery_scan_host, or mcp_add_from_discovery, so routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.