list_tcpInspect local network activity by listing all TCP connections for IPv4 and IPv6. Use it to identify open ports and active connections.
列出 TCP IPv4 + IPv6。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free listing, nor does it mention ordering, filters, or volume of results. It discloses almost nothing beyond the resource being read.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification rather than concise richness.
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 described, and there are no parameters to document. However, for a tool embedded in a dense family of list/find/is_* siblings, the description leaves the agent without the when-to-use context needed to route 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 gives a clear verb ('列出'/list) and resource (TCP) and adds the address-family scope (IPv4 + IPv6). This implicitly distinguishes it from list_tcp4 and list_tcp6, though it never names those siblings as alternatives.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_tcp4, list_tcp6, or list_all. The combined v4+v6 scope is the only hint at usage, and it must be inferred from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.