Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ansible-mcp-server

ansible-mcp-server

by washyu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

security-scan-ports

Scan target hosts for open ports to identify security vulnerabilities. Choose hosts and port range for tailored scanning.

Instructions

Scan for open ports on specified hosts

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "security-scan-ports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetsNoList of hosts/IPs to scan
portRangeNoPort range to scan (e.g., "1-1000")1-65535

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'scan', implying an active network operation, but does not disclose potential intrusiveness, required permissions, rate limiting, or side effects. This is insufficient for a security scanning tool.

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?

Single sentence with 6 words, very concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly expanded to include output or behavioral hints without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, no annotations, and only two simple parameters. The description does not explain return format, error handling, or behavioral details. For a network scanning tool that might produce extensive results, more context is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (targets and portRange). The description adds no parameter-level information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles semantics.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states action (scan) and resource (open ports on hosts). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'security-check-firewall' or 'discover-network-devices' by focusing specifically on port scanning. However, it could be more specific (e.g., TCP scan) to fully distinguish from other port-related tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'security-quick-scan' or 'discover-network-devices'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools