note required port for shell command

[christinaausley]

Description

Related to https://camunda.slack.com/archives/C03UR0V2R2M/p1739905878216919 -- PushFeedback comment:

When should this change go live?

• This is a bug fix, security concern, or something that needs urgent release support. (add bug or support label)
• This is already available but undocumented and should be released within a week. (add available & undocumented label)
• This is on a specific schedule and the assignee will coordinate a release with the DevEx team. (create draft PR and/or add hold label)
• This is part of a scheduled alpha or minor. (add alpha or minor label)
• There is no urgency with this change (add low prio label)

PR Checklist

• My changes are for an upcoming minor release and:
  • are in the /docs directory (version 8.8).
  • are in the /versioned_docs/version-8.7/ directory (version 8.7).
• My changes are for an already released minor and are in a /versioned_docs directory.

• I added a DRI, team, or delegate as a reviewer for technical accuracy and grammar/style:
  • Engineering team review
  • Technical writer review via @camunda/tech-writers unless working with an embedded writer.

[conceptualshark]

We do have have the port noted in a few different places on this page already. I'm not opposed to over documenting this either way; I assume someone would just skip the intro, find their request, and only discover the port was incorrect when it failed.

However, based on the PushFeedback comment, I am not sure it's the examples that need to be documented as running on 9600, as it seems like the user was able to verify the correct port from the examples. I think the note may be more appropriate at the GET/POST/DELETE lines, where it's not mentioned directly - it seems like this might be the part that caused them confusion?

[christinaausley]

Honestly with this note, I don't think we need to duplicate this. If I have more feedback roll in still complaining, we can revisit. Closing this PR.