Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
grok

grok

by cigenb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

grok_interrupt

Stops a running task and its Grok subagents while preserving generated output and files.

Instructions

停止任务及其 Grok 子代理，保留已生成的输出和文件。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "grok_interrupt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
source_idNo可选的来源聊天 ID；Codex 自动取调用元数据，Claude 默认取启动时的会话 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one valuable behavioral fact that isn't in any structured field — that already produced output and files survive the stop — but it says nothing about idempotency, what happens to an unknown or finished id, or what the call returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the preservation guarantee is stated immediately after the action. It is efficient, though the flat single-clause structure leaves no room for routing or parameter guidance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin. An agent still cannot tell what `id` refers to, what the response looks like, or whether a stop on an already-finished task errors out; all of that must live in the description here and doesn't.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There are 2 parameters and schema coverage is 50%: source_id is documented in the schema, but the required `id` is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description never mentions either parameter. It therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap for the one required argument.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb (停止/interrupt) with a specific resource (the task and its Grok subagents), so an agent can tell it apart from grok_status or grok_collect. However, it doesn't contrast itself with grok_steer, the sibling it's most easily confused with, so the distinction still requires inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is for aborting a running task. There is no explicit when-to-use, no "use X instead if you only want to change course" (grok_steer), and no statement about what happens if the task has already completed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools