Stop an ongoing guided crawl operation using its operation ID to halt scanning and prevent further resource use.
Stop a guided crawl operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes | Guided crawl operation ID returned by zap_crawl_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 states the action but doesn't disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to in-progress crawl data, whether it requires an active operation, or what the response looks like. For a control operation, this is a notable gap.
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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 control operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., operation must be running), side effects, or return behavior. An agent would need to infer these from the parameter name and sibling tools.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('a guided crawl operation'), which clearly identifies the action. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like zap_attack_stop, but the resource term 'guided crawl' differentiates it from other stop operations.
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?
The description implies usage: call this when you need to stop a guided crawl. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like zap_attack_stop or zap_crawl_status, but the resource-specific wording provides enough context for an agent to infer the right scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.