Stop a running server process by name to manage system resources and control active services in development environments.
Stop a running server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Process name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the stop is graceful, forceful, or requires permissions. The agent gets no sense of potential side effects or safety considerations.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise but lacks detail that would improve its usefulness without adding length.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or what 'stop' entails operationally (e.g., signal sent, whether it waits for shutdown).
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'name' described as 'Process name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 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?
The description 'Stop a running server' uses a clear verb and resource, directly stating the action. It distinguishes from sibling 'start_server' by the opposite action, and from other tools by focusing specifically on server processes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'run_command' or 'secure_run_command' to manually stop a process. No context on prerequisites (e.g., server must be started) or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.