Shut down a KVM virtual machine cleanly, with an option to force termination when it hangs. Includes wait timeout control to ensure the VM stops reliably without data loss.
Arrête une VM KVM proprement (ou force l'arrêt avec --force) ⚠️ ATTENTION: Opération potentiellement destructive!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | ||
| force | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| vm_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's warning aligns with them. The description adds value by specifying graceful vs forced stop behavior and the --force flag, which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.
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 short and front-loaded with the action and warning. The warning is prominent and useful. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its place with the key information.
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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description should clarify return values, side effects, and the difference between graceful and forced stop. It covers the destructive nature and force option, but lacks details on what happens to the VM state, whether wait/timeout affect behavior, and what the tool returns. Given the complexity and destructive nature, this is a moderate gap.
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%, so the description must compensate. However, the description only mentions vm_name implicitly and the --force flag, leaving wait, timeout, and the exact semantics of force underdocumented. The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds minimal meaning beyond the action itself.
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 clearly states the tool stops a KVM VM gracefully or forcefully with --force, and includes a warning about potential destructiveness. It distinguishes the action from siblings like vm_destroy and vm_start, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 usage for stopping a VM and mentions the force option, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus vm_destroy or other alternatives. The warning about destructiveness gives some context, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.