Skip to main content
Glama

hedwigai

Stop a workbook's run

stop_run
Idempotent

Stops the run editing a workbook — the one read_workbook shows as live_run, or the run_id you name. The run stops at once. What it had written by then is not thrown away: if it changed the document, it becomes a new version, unfinished, and the version before it is kept and restorable; if it changed nothing, no version is written. A drawn procedure stopped before it finishes writes nothing. With no run going, this says so and changes nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNoThe run to stop. Omit for the workbook's live run.
contextNoExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
workbookYesThe workbook id.
llm_modelNoThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already declaring non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, the description still adds substantial context: the run stops at once, partial writes become a new unfinished version with the prior version kept restorable, no version is written if nothing changed, and drawn procedures write nothing. This is exactly the kind of preservation semantics the annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, then dense behavioral detail where every sentence carries distinct information (immediate stop, version creation, no-op case). It is on the longer side but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the state transitions an agent needs to reason about — what happens to written content, versioning, and the no-run case. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so run_id, workbook, context, and llm_model are all already documented in the schema. The description adds only a restatement of the run_id-vs-live-run default, which the schema itself states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Stops the run editing a workbook") and immediately scopes which run via the `live_run` field that read_workbook exposes or a named `run_id`. An agent can distinguish this from list_runs/read_workbook/restore_version without opening any schema.

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?

Explains how to target the run (the workbook's live run or a named run_id) and describes the edge case where no run is going. It gives clear context for invocation but never names a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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.