stop_timerStops your running timer, wherever it is — in any of your workspaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | The item the timer was on. Null when it was in another workspace. | |
| minutes | No | How long it ran, when in this workspace. | |
| running | No | false when no timer was running. | |
| stopped | No | What was stopped, in words. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / key / descriptionPrevious value: -"The item the timer was on."New value: +"The item the timer was on. Null when it was in another workspace."Output schema / properties / minutes / descriptionPrevious value: -"How long it ran."New value: +"How long it ran, when in this workspace."Output schema / properties / stoppedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "What was stopped, in words.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond these by clarifying that the timer is stopped globally, across any workspace, not just the current one. It does not contradict 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core action and scope immediately, which is ideal for a zero-parameter tool.
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 simple zero-parameter timer action, the description is complete: it states what happens and the cross-workspace scope. Annotations cover idempotency and safety, and an output schema exists, so return values and error behavior need not be explained here.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not discuss parameters, and the schema requires no additional semantic explanation.
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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Stops your running timer' — and adds a clear scope: 'wherever it is — in any of your workspaces.' This distinguishes it from siblings like start_timer and delete_time_entry, which operate on different resources.
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 implies when to use it: when you have a running timer. However, it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives such as log_time, delete_time_entry, or timesheet, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.