skill_mcp_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action 'Stop MCP server' but does not disclose side effects on the skill, whether the operation is reversible, or error behavior when no MCP server is running for the skill.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately concise for a simple stop operation. It contains no filler and is easily scannable.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks usage context, differentiation from similar stop tools, and behavioral details such as return values or state changes. It provides the core purpose but little else.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, with skill_id described as 'Skill ID with running MCP'. The description itself adds no additional parameter guidance beyond the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a clear verb 'Stop' and identifies the resource as 'MCP server' with the scope 'for a skill'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_servers_stop (which stops a general MCP server) and skill_mcp_start (which starts a server for a skill).

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 implies usage (when you want to stop a skill's MCP server), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the generic mcp_servers_stop or alternative tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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