Stop a running OpenFOAM job gracefully so current results are written, or force termination when immediate shutdown is needed.
Stop a running job, gracefully (results written) or forcibly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | 'write': solver writes the current time and exits cleanly (controlDict stopAt writeNow); 'now': exit at next step without writing; 'kill': terminate the process group immediately. | write |
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by distinguishing a graceful stop that writes results from a forcible one, letting the agent reason about data loss tradeoffs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key distinction between graceful and forcible stopping is packed into the clause that follows the core action.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and covered safety annotations, this is minimally adequate. It omits what happens to the job afterward, whether stopping an already-stopped job is safe, and any indication of response, which would be worth a sentence.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%: the mode enum is fully documented in the schema, while job_id has no description. The description's 'gracefully (results written) or forcibly' loosely maps to the mode values but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (stop) and resource (a running job), and hints at two behavioral variants (graceful vs. forcible). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like job_status or run, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'a running job' signals the precondition that a job must be in flight. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., job_status to check before stopping), and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.