Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SuperDev

SuperDev

by Xsxdot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

Stop service

stop_service
Destructive

Stop a resolved deployment by providing its ID or service details. If approval is required, waits for desktop approval or accepts a one-time token to proceed.

Instructions

Stop one resolved deployment. If approval is required, wait for desktop approval by default and resume with a one-time token.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "stop_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
env_nameNo
project_idNo
service_idNo
project_nameNo
service_nameNo
deployment_idNo
approval_tokenNo
debug_session_idNo
approval_wait_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds approval-related behavior (wait for desktop approval by default, resume with one-time token) beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not explain what 'resolved deployment' means, whether the action is reversible, or what the actual consequences are.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, the phrase 'resolved deployment' is unclear and could be more precise, slightly detracting from clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and only a destructive annotation, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify the target deployment (e.g., via service_id or deployment_id), what the return value is, or any prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 9 parameters, but it does not explain any of them. The only hint is 'one-time token,' which may relate to approval_token, but no parameter names or meanings are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Stop one resolved deployment,' indicating the tool stops a service/deployment. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_service and restart_service. However, 'resolved deployment' is vague, and there's a mismatch between the title ('Stop service') and the description ('deployment').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention start_service, restart_service, or diagnose_service. The only conditional guidance is about approval behavior, which is not usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools