Points the devtools proxy at a different local dev server port. Use it to reconfigure the connection when your Three.js app runs on another port such as 3000, 5173, or 8080.
[CONNECTION] Configures the devtools server. Point the proxy at another local dev server port.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | Dev server port, e.g. 3000, 5173, 8080 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / port / descriptionPrevious value: -"The dev server port (e.g. 3000, 5173, 8080)"New value: +"Dev server port, e.g. 3000, 5173, 8080"v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the context that this reconfigures the proxy, but says nothing about whether the connection drops, whether HMR resets, or what the proxy switch does to running sessions - useful but not rich.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with a clear [CONNECTION] category tag. Every word earns its place, though the second sentence largely restates the first.
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 single-parameter connection tool whose annotations cover safety and idempotency and with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. It falls short of fully explaining the behavioral effect on the existing connection or how it interacts with set_dev_url.
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 100% and the single 'port' parameter is already documented with examples (3000, 5173, 8080). The description adds only 'another local dev server port', which restates the schema rather than adding syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Configures the devtools server' and 'Point the proxy at another local dev server port.' This tells an agent it manipulates the dev-server connection target. It distinguishes reasonably from sibling set_dev_url (port vs. URL) by implication, but never confirms the distinction explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Point the proxy at another local dev server port' - the agent can infer it is for redirecting the proxy when the dev server port changes. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative (e.g., set_dev_url) is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.