Detect orphaned local development ports left behind by stopped agent runs. Optionally check custom ports to identify lingering dev servers before cleanup.
Detect orphaned local development ports (e.g. 3000, 5173, 8000, 8080) left behind by stopped agent runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | No | Optional list of port numbers to check. Defaults to standard dev ports [3000, 3001, 5173, 5174, 8000, 8080, 8888]. |
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 behavioral burden. 'Detect' implies a read-oriented inspection rather than cleanup, and the cause 'stopped agent runs' adds useful context, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, permissions, or what the detection returns.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The examples and causal context all support the core purpose.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. The main minor gap is that it does not state what the detection returns, and no output schema exists to cover that.
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 100% and the single optional 'ports' parameter is fully documented with defaults. The description mentions example ports but adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('orphaned local development ports') and gives examples and a cause ('stopped agent runs'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling scan/clean sandbox artifact tools.
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 phrase 'left behind by stopped agent runs' implies the usage context, but the description does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as scan_sandbox_artifacts or clean_sandbox_artifacts, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.