Terminate a running Unreal Engine dedicated server and kill its full process tree; returns whether it was running and stopped. If no server is active, it performs a safe no-op.
Terminates the in-progress dedicated server, if one is running (honest no-op otherwise). FMonitoredProcess::Cancel(true) kills the whole process tree.
Returns: { stopped: bool, was_running: bool }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial beyond that: the honest no-op when nothing is running, the fact that Cancel(true) kills the whole process tree, and the return shape. The process-tree kill is a meaningful destructiveness detail not captured by 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?
Two front-loaded sentences: the primary effect first, the edge-case no-op parenthetically, then the low-level kill detail and return shape. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the return value and the no-op/kill semantics an agent needs to use this destructive call correctly. Nothing essential is missing.
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; there are no argument semantics to add. The description's mention of the return object is output context rather than parameter information.
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 and resource ("Terminates the in-progress dedicated server") with the exact object of action. An agent can immediately tell this stops the server process, contrasting cleanly with siblings like launch_dedicated_server and get_dedicated_server_status.
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 explains the no-op-if-not-running condition, which implies when the call is meaningful, but it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. launch_dedicated_server) or states preconditions for use. Usage is inferable rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.