sandbox_unexpose_portRemoves the HTTPS URL for a sandbox port, revoking its access token while leaving the process running.
Remove the HTTPS URL of a sandbox port; its access token stops working. The process inside keeps running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | ||
| sandboxId | Yes | Exact sandbox ID from sandbox_create or sandbox_list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the access token is invalidated and the underlying process survives. It stops short of saying whether re-exposing issues a fresh token or whether calling on a non-exposed port errors.
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 tightly packed clauses separated by a semicolon, with the primary effect front-loaded and the non-obvious side effect second. Every phrase carries information.
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 2-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential effects (URL gone, token dead, process alive). Only edge-case behavior — idempotent re-calls on an unexposed port, and whether the port param must match an existing exposure — is left unstated.
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 only 50%: sandboxId is documented in-schema while 'port' has no description beyond numeric bounds. The description says 'a sandbox port' but adds no format, range, or lookup guidance (e.g. from sandbox_show) to compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 (Remove) and resource (the HTTPS URL of a sandbox port), which unambiguously makes it the inverse of the sibling sandbox_expose_port. It stops short of naming the sibling pair explicitly, but the operation is still instantly identifiable.
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 clarifier 'the process inside keeps running' implicitly steers an agent away from this tool when the goal is to terminate the sandbox (use sandbox_delete instead), but no alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given. Usage must be inferred from the effect description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.