Stops the container for an Isaac Lab training run by run name, so you can halt experiments and free resources while keeping the Isaac Sim session alive.
Stop a training run's container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool stops a container but does not describe whether the stop is graceful or forced, whether it is irreversible, what happens to the training run's state, or any authentication or side-effect considerations.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action and target immediately, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations. It omits usage context, behavioral implications, and parameter details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter, run_name, is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description implies that the tool operates on a training run, but it adds no format, syntax, or meaning beyond the parameter's name.
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 states a specific verb, 'Stop', and a specific resource, 'a training run's container', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like train_start and train_status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from those siblings by naming them or describing conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
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 train_start or train_list. It implies usage but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when stopping is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.