lookup_by_applicationFind all ports registered to a specific application by searching its name. Resolve port conflicts and keep your port registry accurate.
Find all ports registered to a specific application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_name | Yes | The application name to search for (case-insensitive). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Find all ports' clearly signals a non-mutating read and a multi-match result set, which is useful. It does not address empty-result behavior, errors, or permissions, but these are less critical for a simple lookup.
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?
One short sentence with no redundant phrases; 'all ports' and 'specific application' are both informative. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main omissions are explicit alternative routing and edge-case behavior, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The sole parameter app_name is already fully described in the input schema, including case-insensitivity. The description adds little semantic value beyond identifying the target concept, so the high schema-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a concrete verb ('Find') with a specific resource ('all ports registered to a specific application'), so an agent immediately knows this is a query by application name. It also differs from the sibling lookup_by_port, which queries by port number.
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 intended use is inferable: call this when you have an app_name and need its registered ports. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as lookup_by_port, so the agent is left to infer routing from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.