Skip to main content
Glama

Fudge for Shopify

Stop work

stop_work
Destructive

Stop Fudge’s reply running on one work item. With runId, stops only that run. The draft and anything already saved stay.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "stop_work"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesThe work’s fudge://thread/… or fudge://project/… ref.
runIdNo
storeNoThe connected store to use. Omit when only one is connected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool destructive and non-idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by saying the draft and anything already saved remain intact, and that `runId` limits the stop to one run. It does not describe permissions or error behavior, but it meaningfully reduces uncertainty beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then scope, then effect on saved content. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 small mutation tool with annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly in the common case. The main remaining gap is the behavior when `runId` is absent.

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?

The description adds valuable meaning for `runId`: when supplied, only that run is stopped. However, it does not explain what happens when `runId` is omitted, and `store` is left to the schema. With schema coverage at 67%, this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: stop Fudge’s reply running on one work item. It also clarifies that `runId` narrows the stop to a single run. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any named sibling tool.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: stop a running reply for a work item. The `runId` sentence gives a conditional usage nuance, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative behavior.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.