Action1 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

stop_automation_instance

Destructive

Halt a running automation, such as a deploy_updates or run_script run, by providing its organization and instance IDs to stop execution.

Instructions

Stop a running automation (e.g. a deploy_updates or run_script run).

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": {
      "org_id": "<org_id>",
      "instance_id": "<instance_id>"
    },
    "name": "stop_automation_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org_id`	Yes
`instance_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the interruption profile is known. The description adds that the target is a *running* automation (via deploy_updates/run_script), but does not say what happens to partial work, whether the stop is reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient, though the parenthetical example is slightly loose ('run' vs. an instance) rather than wasteful.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented required params, the description is too thin. It never clarifies what an 'instance' is, how to obtain instance_id, or the effect of stopping mid-run, leaving key operational gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and neither org_id nor instance_id is explained in the description. With two required params fully undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop a running automation') and grounds it with concrete examples (deploy_updates, run_script runs). An agent can distinguish it from the actual deploy/run siblings, though it does not name them as distinct tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage is clear from context ('a running automation'), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as listing instances before stopping one.

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