lmstudio

LM Studio: stop server

server_stop

DestructiveIdempotent

Stops the local LM Studio API server, cutting off other apps' API access until it is started again.

Instructions

Stop the LM Studio API server on this machine (lms server stop). Other apps that use the API lose access until it is started again.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the blast radius: dependent apps lose API access until the server is restarted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the impact. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-param, no-output-schema lifecycle control with rich annotations, the definition covers action, scope and impact. The only minor gap is behavior on an already-stopped server, which idempotentHint largely addresses.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the description correctly adds none. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool.

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 ('stop') and resource ('the LM Studio API server on this machine'), plus the equivalent CLI command for disambiguation. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling server_start.

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?

The consequence sentence ('Other apps that use the API lose access until it is started again') implies caution and points at server_start as the way back, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance (e.g., check server_status first, or don't call while jobs are running).

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