can_bind_tcpAttempt to bind a TCP port on a specified host to verify availability before starting a service. Use it to check whether a port is free or already in use.
实际尝试 bind TCP 端口。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | 127.0.0.1 | |
| port | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only says it 'actually attempts' to bind. It doesn't disclose whether the port is held/released, permissions needed (e.g., privileged ports), side effects, or timeout behavior. An agent cannot infer the safety or impact profile.
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?
Extremely short – one sentence – which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently structured. There's no waste, but also no front-loaded value.
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?
Even with an output schema present (which can cover return values), the description is inadequate: no usage context, no parameter semantics, no behavioral disclosure for a tool that performs a real network bind. It leaves critical gaps for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0% – neither host nor port has a description. The description adds no information about parameter meaning, defaults (host defaults to 127.0.0.1), or constraints like valid port ranges. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails 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 '实际尝试 bind TCP 端口' (actually attempt to bind a TCP port) restates the tool name can_bind_tcp almost word-for-word, making it largely tautological. It doesn't distinguish from can_bind_udp or explain what a successful/failed bind means compared to is_port_used or get_free_port.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like can_bind_udp, is_tcp_port_used, or get_free_port. The 'actually attempt' phrasing implies a real bind test, but doesn't clarify how it differs from simpler checks or whether it has side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.