Kia Access MCP

kia_stop_charge

Idempotent

Stop your Kia's charging session remotely. Requires your confirmation before sending the command; verify the result with vehicle status.

Instructions

Ask the vehicle to stop charging (evc/cancel). Verified against a charging vehicle: evStatus.batteryCharge goes false within ~30-60s. Confirm with kia_vehicle_status rather than trusting the success status. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call makes NO network call and returns a preview plus a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vinKey`	Yes	Vehicle key (the `vehicleKey` from the vehicle-list tool). Not the VIN.
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0Sep 24, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / confirm

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0Sep 17, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false (it's a state-changing but non-destructive operation), the description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the confirmation behavior: it may return a preview and confirmToken without making a network call, and that a repeat call is needed. It also warns about not trusting success status and suggests verifying with a sibling tool. This fully discloses the tool's side effects and asynchronous nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long but packed with essential information: primary action, verification advice, and confirmation flow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides critical usage details. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and 2 parameters, the description is comprehensive. It covers the action, the confirmation caveat, the verification step, and the exact scenario for using confirmToken. Given the tool's moderate complexity (state-changing, confirmation-dependent), the description leaves no critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, including the pattern and that vinKey is not the VIN. The description adds important context for `confirmToken`: it clarifies that it is only for non-elicitation clients, must not be invented or reused, and is ignored with elicitation. This adds meaning beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3 (schema coverage is 100%).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's primary function (ask vehicle to stop charging) and specifies the underlying command (`evc/cancel`), distinguishing it from siblings like `kia_start_charge` and `kia_set_charge_limits`. The verb 'stop' and resource 'charging' are precise, and the verification hint adds context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to stop charging), and explicitly recommends confirming via `kia_vehicle_status` instead of trusting success status, which differentiates it from siblings. It also details the two-step confirmation protocol, clarifying when the first call makes no network call and when a repeat call with confirmToken is needed, guiding the agent on the correct invocation sequence.

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

Deploy Server

kia_stop_charge

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools