stop_preview_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that servers are ephemeral and the action stops them, and it describes the return value (JSON string with stopped ports and remaining count). It does not detail side effects like irreversible termination, but the stopping action is intuitive and clearly implied.

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 succinct and well-structured: purpose statement, args section, and returns section. No redundant or filler text; every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It doesn't address edge cases like nonexistent ports or error handling, but these are minor and the output schema exists. Overall, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the parameter: 'Port of the server to stop. When omitted, all preview servers started by this MCP process are stopped.' This adds precise meaning beyond the schema, clarifying default behavior and scope.

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 ephemeral preview servers started by serve_revealjs_html. It uses a specific verb (stop) and identifies the resource (preview servers), distinguishing it from siblings like serve_revealjs_html and preview_slide. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (to stop preview servers) and details the port parameter behavior, including the 'all servers' default when omitted. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but given the complementary nature with serve_revealjs_html and lack of other stop tools, context is sufficient.

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