net-mcp

Local Netstat Stats

local_netstat_stats

Diagnose network health issues by viewing TCP, UDP, and ICMP protocol statistics, including packet counts, error rates, and retransmissions, without admin privileges.

Instructions

Show network protocol statistics (TCP, UDP, ICMP counters).

Displays packet counts, error rates, retransmissions, and other protocol-level statistics. Useful for diagnosing network health issues. Does not require admin privileges.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Additional context about the result
`error`	No	Why the tool could not produce a result: input validation failure, tool disabled by configuration, binary not installed, or no service answered. Empty when the command executed.
`stderr`	Yes	Standard error of the command, or the failure message when the command did not run
`stdout`	Yes	Standard output of the command (curl output is capped at 10,000 characters)
`command`	Yes	The exact command line that was executed, or the tool name if the command never ran
`success`	Yes	True when the command ran and exited with status 0
`platform`	Yes	Operating system the command ran on (Darwin, Linux or Windows)
`returncode`	Yes	Process exit status. 0 = success; 2 = input rejected before running; 124 = timed out; 126 = disabled by config or permission denied; 127 = binary not found

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a read-only display operation, what categories of output to expect, and that admin privileges are not required. It does not describe edge cases like empty counters, but the output schema covers return structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Minor redundancy exists between 'network protocol statistics' and 'other protocol-level statistics', but it remains efficient and each sentence contributes purpose, output detail, or usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what data it returns, when to use it, and a key behavioral trait (no admin privileges). No critical calling information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no semantic burden on the description. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter meaning needs to be added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('network protocol statistics') and enumerates concrete contents: TCP/UDP/ICMP counters, packet counts, error rates, retransmissions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like local_connections, which report active connections, and local_interfaces, which report interface state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context ('Useful for diagnosing network health issues'), which implies when an agent should invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the protocol-statistics scope makes the boundary versus sibling local networking tools reasonably evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.