stop_relayHalts a running relay_conversation after it finishes the current turn, letting you end a bot exchange cleanly without cutting off an in-progress reply.
Ask a running relay_conversation to stop after the current turn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the cooperative semantics — the stop takes effect only 'after the current turn,' meaning the call is not a hard interrupt. It does not say whether the call blocks until the turn ends, what it returns, or how it behaves when no relay is running.
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 sentence with no waste, front-loaded on the action and immediately qualifying the timing of the effect. Nothing to trim and nothing important buried.
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 zero-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral nuance (deferred stop). The remaining gap — error/edge-case behavior when no relay is active — is minor but real for a state-changing tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that the target is implicit (the running relay) rather than addressable by an ID, which matches the empty schema.
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?
Names a specific verb ('stop') and a specific resource ('a running relay_conversation'), and by referencing the sibling tool by name it makes the relationship to relay_conversation explicit. An agent can distinguish this from relay_conversation, wait_for_reply, and the other messaging siblings without consulting schemas.
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 phrase 'a running relay_conversation' implies the precondition that a relay must be active, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what happens if called with no active relay, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., how to stop something other than a relay, or whether send_message/broadcast can terminate it).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.