unregister_portUnregister a port number to release its allocation in the central registry, freeing it for other applications. Specify the port to remove from tracking.
Remove a port registration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | The port number to unregister. |
| 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. 'Remove' signals a mutating operation, but the description does not mention side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, whether the port must already be registered, or what happens to dependent registrations.
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, tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it could carry a bit more operational context without becoming bloated.
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 tool with an output schema, the core invocation essentials are present: the required port and the action. However, the absence of annotations and any usage or behavioral context leaves an agent to infer edge cases and when to select this tool, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete.
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 100% and the only parameter, port, is clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already carries the full meaning.
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 ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a port registration'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like register_port, lookup_by_port, and get_free_port.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling register_port implies the opposite operation, the description does not explicitly state conditions, prerequisites, or when a different tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.