instabox-mcp

Unpublish a port

instabox_unpublish_port

Remove a machine port's public URL and close its open connections while keeping the internal server running.

Instructions

Remove a port's public URL and close its open connections. The server inside the machine keeps running.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "port": "<port>"
    },
    "name": "instabox_unpublish_port"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Machine ID (m_...) or its unique name
`port`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it discloses the side effect of closing open connections and, importantly, that the underlying server process is unaffected — a non-obvious scoping fact. It does not contradict destructiveHint=false, since only the public URL is removed. Minor gap: no mention of behavior when the port isn't published, and idempotentHint=false is not explained.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the destructive effect is front-loaded before the reassuring non-effect.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It falls just short on error/precondition behavior and on documenting the undescribed 'port' parameter.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50% — the 'port' parameter has no description in the schema — and the description adds nothing about either parameter. 'A port's public URL' hints that port identifies a published mapping, but the machine 'id' and the port's format/range are left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Remove') plus resource ('a port's public URL') with an explicit statement of the residual state ('the server inside the machine keeps running'). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling instabox_publish_port, though it never names that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intent is inferable — use this to undo a publish — but the description never states when to use it versus alternatives, nor any precondition (e.g., that the port must currently be published). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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