Stop an active guided scan by passing its operation ID, ending the scan process to prevent further security testing.
Stop a guided active-scan operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes | Guided attack operation ID returned by zap_attack_start |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the stop action without explaining whether stopping is asynchronous, whether it is idempotent, whether results are preserved, or what side effects occur. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation-style tool.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. It front-loads the action and the object, making it immediately scannable for an agent.
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?
For a single-parameter stop operation, the core invocation is adequately specified: the agent knows the action and the required operationId. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves uncertainty about the post-condition of the operation, such as whether further status polling is needed or whether the operation can be stopped more than once.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the operationId parameter is already well documented as the ID returned by zap_attack_start. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Stop', and a specific resource, 'guided active-scan operation'. This clearly identifies the tool as the counterpart to zap_attack_start and differentiates it from sibling tools like zap_crawl_stop and zap_passive_scan_status.
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?
Usage context is implied by the phrase 'guided active-scan operation' and by the operationId parameter being described as returned by zap_attack_start. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, such as stopping a crawl or waiting for an attack status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.