ISO-toolset MCP

cortex-stop

Stops a Cortex session, with attached mode leaving an externally owned process running.

Instructions

Stop a Cortex session; attached mode leaves an externally owned process running.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "cortex-stop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait beyond the name: in attached mode the externally owned process is left running rather than killed. It omits idempotency, behavior when the session id is unknown or already stopped, and any permission requirements.

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?

A single clause, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mode caveat — no filler. It is terse to the point of leaving gaps, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the definition references an "attached mode" without saying how the mode is determined (presumably at start), and leaves the sole required parameter undocumented with no annotations to fall back on. For a lifecycle-terminating tool this is thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required parameter session_id, and the description adds nothing about its format, where to obtain it, or whether it must be a live session. With one undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Stop a Cortex session"), which clearly contrasts with the cortex-start sibling by implication. It adds a scope note about attached mode, but never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to stop a session versus calling cortex-status or cortex-call first, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is only inferable from the verb itself.

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

Deploy Server