tslink

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Disable the app portal

portal_disable

Idempotent

Disables the home portal and closes its route listeners, stopping local HTTPS exposure through Tailscale while keeping app services, grants, and enrolled node state intact.

Instructions

Disable the home portal. With gateway mode on, HTTP MCP also requires the current portal owner, checked in the registry write transaction; other callers receive access_request_owner_required. App services, grants, retained owner/admin identities and enrolled local node state remain. The running daemon closes the portal and route listeners. No remote device deletion or invites.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "portal_disable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`error`	No
`state`	Yes
`enabled`	Yes
`gateway`	No
`message`	No
`hostname`	No
`unavailable_apps`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 27, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / message
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / unavailable_apps
```
Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds substantial behavioral context: retained app services, grants, owner/admin identities, and local node state; the daemon closing portal and route listeners; the gateway-mode owner check in the registry transaction; and the access_request_owner_required error. This is exactly the kind of consequence-level detail annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and packs several useful facts into compact sentences. It is dense but each sentence contributes a distinct fact (requirement, retained state, daemon behavior, exclusions), with only minor room for trimming.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers preconditions, side effects, retained state, and the relevant error case, leaving no obvious operational gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and its explanation of the owner requirement is about access control rather than input arguments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Disable the home portal") that is immediately distinguishable from its sibling portal_enable. It also scopes the operation by naming what is preserved and what the daemon does, so the agent knows exactly what 'disable' means here.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through the gateway-mode owner requirement and the explicit error code, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or any conditions under which it should not be used. A reader can infer the intent from the name and sibling set, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.