register_portRegister a port for an application to track and manage port assignments in a central registry.
Register a port to an application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | The port number to register. | |
| app_name | Yes | The name of the application using this port. | |
| description | No | Optional description of what the port is used for. |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Register a port to an application' implies a state-changing operation but does not mention idempotency, whether the port must be free, what happens if the port is already registered, or any permissions needed.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward registration tool and immediately communicates the core action.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema plus fully documented parameters, so the basics are covered. However, with no annotations and no mention of behavioral constraints or edge cases, the description is only minimally adequate for safe and correct invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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 specific verb ('Register') and clearly identifies the resource (a port) and target (an application). It is distinct from the sibling tools like lookup_by_port and unregister_port, though it does not explicitly call out those differences.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_free_port or unregister_port. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another sibling should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.