Stop a running WLAN Pi service by its name. Use list_allowed_services to get valid options.
Stop a WLAN Pi service.
Args: name: Service name (use list_allowed_services to see valid names)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 clearly states the mutating action, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, error behavior for already-stopped services, or any required permissions. For a stop/mutation operation, this is a notable transparency gap.
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 compact and front-loaded: one clear action sentence followed by a single parameter line with a useful pointer. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant detail.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the invocation path is mostly complete: the agent knows what to stop and how to find valid names. However, the lack of side-effect disclosure and explicit routing among start/restart/stop siblings leaves the context only partially complete.
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 has 0% description coverage and only calls the parameter 'Name.' The description compensates by defining it as a service name and giving an actionable way to discover valid values via list_allowed_services. This is sufficient for correctly invoking the single required parameter.
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 and resource: 'Stop a WLAN Pi service.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_service, restart_service, and get_service_status, even without opening any 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 description implies its use by the imperative verb 'Stop' and points to list_allowed_services for valid service names, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus start_service or restart_service. The prerequisite about valid names is helpful but is argument guidance, not tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.