Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

stop_printer_health_monitoring

Destructive

Stops background printer health monitoring, cancels the periodic health-check loop, and clears active alerts so you can end monitoring for a specific printer.

Instructions

Stop background health monitoring for a printer.

Cancels the periodic health-check loop started by
``start_printer_health_monitoring()``.  Active alerts are cleared.
Monitoring can be restarted at any time by calling
``start_printer_health_monitoring()`` again.

:param printer_name: Printer to stop monitoring.

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": {
      "printer_name": "<printer_name>"
    },
    "name": "stop_printer_health_monitoring"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_nameYesPrinter to stop monitoring.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"Printer to stop monitoring."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's real value is the extra detail that active alerts are cleared and that monitoring can be restarted at any time. That tells the agent exactly what state is lost and that the action is recoverable, which annotations alone do not convey.

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?

The core action and the start-tool linkage are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the reversibility note following. The trailing reStructuredText :param line duplicates the schema and is minor waste, keeping it from a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies what matters: what is cancelled, what is cleared, and that it can be restarted. Only a note on failure behavior (e.g., stopping when no monitor is running) is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with the identical wording "Printer to stop monitoring." The description's :param line repeats the schema verbatim and adds no new meaning, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Stop background health monitoring for a printer") and immediately identifies the counterpart operation, start_printer_health_monitoring, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like check_printer_health or monitor_print without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains the context that selects this tool: it cancels the periodic loop started by start_printer_health_monitoring(). It also notes the operation is reversible via restart. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., versus a one-shot health check), so it falls just below the explicit-alternatives bar.

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