instabox-mcp

List public ports

instabox_list_ports

Read-onlyIdempotent

List published ports and their public HTTPS URLs for a specific machine, or across all machines when no machine ID is provided.

Instructions

List published ports (public HTTPS URLs) of one machine, or of all your machines when id is omitted.

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": "instabox_list_ports"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	Machine ID or name; omit for all machines

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no repeating. The description adds the useful semantic point that "ports" means published public HTTPS URLs plus the default-scope behavior, but says nothing about how many results come back or whether the list is paginated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence with zero filler; the resource definition is front-loaded and the scoping rule follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-required-param read tool with full schema coverage and a full annotation set, the definition covers purpose, scope and safety adequately. The only shortfall is that with no output schema, the description could hint at what a listed port entry contains (URL, owning machine, port number).

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as "Machine ID or name; omit for all machines". The description restates that omission behavior but adds no format, naming, or matching semantics beyond the schema, so this is the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List published ports") and immediately disambiguates the resource with "(public HTTPS URLs)", which an agent could otherwise confuse with network ports. The scope is explicit — one machine, or all machines — and it is clearly distinct from the write-side siblings publish_port/unpublish_port.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent the condition that selects each mode: pass `id` for one machine, omit it for all machines. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, but the two invocation modes cover the practical decision space for a read-only listing.

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