mcp_servers_stop

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 only states 'Stop a running MCP server' but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the server process is killed, whether configuration persists), reversibility, permissions required, or error outcomes. For a mutation operation, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single six-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and contains zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its purpose and immediately communicative.

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?

The tool has a minimal schema (one parameter) but no output schema or annotations. The terse description does not explain what happens after stopping, whether the server remains listed, how errors are handled, or what the tool returns. This is under-specified for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and consequences, even though the operation is conceptually simple.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter 'name' with the description 'Server name to stop', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully defines the parameter's purpose.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Stop' with a clear object 'a running MCP server', unambiguously identifying the tool's action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_servers_start, mcp_servers_restart, and mcp_servers_remove, which act on the same server type but with different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mcp_servers_restart, mcp_servers_remove, or skill_mcp_stop. It does not state that the server must be running, whether the server remains configured but stopped, or any other contextual conditions that would help an agent choose this tool correctly.

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