is_port_usedCheck whether a local TCP or UDP port is currently in use by querying the system network connection table. Use it to verify port availability before binding.
判断本地端口是否出现在系统网络连接表中。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | ||
| protocol | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool checks whether a local port appears in the system network connection table, which implies a read-only query, but it does not clarify whether 'used' means listening, established, or bound, nor does it mention protocol handling or any auth/side-effect 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. For a simple boolean port check, the size is appropriate and every sentence earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the input schema has no descriptions, the protocol parameter is critical for distinguishing TCP/UDP behavior, and the description does not clarify it or differentiate from sibling tools, making the definition incomplete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only vaguely implies the port is local, and it never explains the optional protocol parameter or valid values, leaving the input semantics largely undocumented.
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 states a clear verb (判断/determine) and resource (本地端口/local port) with the condition that it appears in the system network connection table. However, it does not distinguish this general tool from siblings like is_tcp_port_used or is_udp_port_used, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as is_tcp_port_used, is_udp_port_used, or can_bind_udp. The operation itself implies a use case, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.