stop_log_stream
Stop an active log stream for a session to halt incoming logs and end log capture.
Instructions
Stop an active log stream for the session.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | No |
Stop an active log stream for a session to halt incoming logs and end log capture.
Stop an active log stream for the session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.34.0Input schema / allOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "not": {
+ "required": [
+ "expectedState"
+ ]
+ }
+ }
+]v0.31.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says only that the stream is stopped; it does not disclose whether the call is idempotent, what happens if no stream is active, whether buffered logs are discarded or still readable, or whether errors are raised — all material for a terminating mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is close to under-specification rather than tightness, but nothing written is wasted.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a 0%-documented parameter, the description should explain termination semantics and the sessionId contract but does neither. An agent cannot tell from this definition what state the system is left in after the call.
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 0% and the single sessionId parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase "for the session" weakly hints at session scoping but never explains whether sessionId is required (the schema marks nothing required) or what happens when it is omitted.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Stop an active log stream") with session scope, which is unambiguous on its own. It never names the sibling lifecycle tools (start_log_stream, read_log_stream) that an agent would need to distinguish it from, so differentiation is left to the name alone.
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?
"An active log stream" implies a stream must already have been started, giving implicit preconditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of start_log_stream/read_log_stream as alternatives. An agent must infer the lifecycle from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.