Code MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is destructive (likely yes), what permissions are required, if it's reversible, what happens to dependent processes, or what the response looks like. For a potentially destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 potentially destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'stop' means (graceful shutdown vs force kill), what happens after stopping, error conditions, or return values. The context demands more completeness for safe agent usage.

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 100% with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Process name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified what constitutes a valid server name.

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 action ('Stop') and target resource ('a running server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'end_coding_session' or 'docker_containers' which might also stop processes, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), when not to use it, or what alternatives exist among the many sibling tools for process management.

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