Identify which process listens on a TCP port and whether it blocks your local stack. Use it to resolve port conflicts before Apache or MySQL startup fails.
Identify which process is listening on a TCP port (e.g. 80, 8080, 3306) and what that means for the local stack.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether elevated privileges are required (port-to-process lookup often needs root), whether the check is local-only or accepts remote hosts, or that the operation is read-only. Only the output content is hinted at ('which process... and what that means').
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 concrete port examples — no waste. The trailing clause 'and what that means for the local stack' is somewhat vague and does less work than the first half.
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, and the tool is a simple single-parameter lookup. Still, with zero annotation coverage and no output-description burden lifted, the missing privilege and locality details leave real gaps for an agent deciding whether it can call this successfully.
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% for the single 'port' integer parameter, so the description must compensate. It supplies example values (80, 8080, 3306), which adds mild meaning, but omits the valid range and whether non-standard or privileged ports behave differently.
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 specific verb and resource — 'Identify which process is listening on a TCP port' — which an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like diagnose_stack or explain_symptom, which also sound diagnostic, so routing still requires inference.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus diagnose_stack, read_error_logs, or explain_symptom, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'what that means for the local stack' vaguely implies a troubleshooting context but gives no actionable routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.