Skip to main content
Glama

hooks_stop_watching

Stop monitoring file system changes to conserve resources when project tracking is no longer needed.

Instructions

Stop file system watching

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Tool handler that invokes the HooksService to stop file watching and returns a success response.
    tools.set('hooks_stop_watching', async () => {
      await hooksService.stopFileWatching();
      return { success: true, message: 'File watching stopped' };
    });
  • Schema definition for the hooks_stop_watching tool, specifying no input parameters required.
    {
      name: 'hooks_stop_watching',
      description: 'Stop file system watching',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
        required: []
      }
    }
  • src/index.ts:415-417 (registration)
    Top-level registration of hooks tools in the main MCP server class, adding them to the tools map and tool definitions.
    if (this.config.services.hooks && this.hooksService) {
      const hookTools = registerHooksTools(this.tools, this.hooksService);
      this.toolDefinitions.push(...hookTools);
  • Implementation of stopFileWatching method in HooksService that iterates over watchers, closes them, removes from map, and sends notification.
    async stopFileWatching(): Promise<void> {
      const watcherEntries = Array.from(this.watchers.entries());
      for (const [name, watcher] of watcherEntries) {
        await watcher.close();
        this.watchers.delete(name);
      }
      await this.notify('system', 'File watching stopped');
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stop') but doesn't explain what happens after stopping (e.g., whether it's reversible, if it affects other operations, or what the response looks like). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation to stop an active process) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success indicators, or error conditions. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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 'Stop file system watching' clearly states the action (stop) and the resource (file system watching), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hooks_start_watching' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what exactly is being stopped (e.g., a specific watcher or all watchers), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that file system watching must be active first), exclusions, or related tools like 'hooks_start_watching' for starting the process. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about proper usage scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Ghostseller/CastPlan_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server