stop_timerStop the active timer and record elapsed time, rounding up to the next minute with a minimum of one minute. Use it to finalize tracked hours for billing.
Stop the running timer. Elapsed time is rounded up to the next minute (at least 1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stopped | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: elapsed time is rounded up to the next minute with a minimum of 1, which materially affects the recorded result.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one behavioral caveat. Nothing is padded and every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the rounding rule is the key behavioral detail an agent needs. The only gap is the error/edge-case behavior when no timer is running, which is left unstated.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Stop the running timer'), which is unambiguous against siblings like start_timer and get_running_timer. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls just 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 usage is implied by the verb: you call this to stop a timer that is currently running. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., what happens if no timer is running) or routing to alternatives such as get_running_timer to check state first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.