Stop the Xcode MCP Server's web interface to terminate monitoring and free system resources when no longer needed.
Stop the web interface if it is running
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": "stop_web_monitor"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden. It states the tool stops the web interface but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to ongoing processes, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Stop the web interface') and adds a conditional clause ('if it is running') for clarity. There's zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete as a mutation tool with no annotations. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like effects or prerequisites, which are important for safe invocation. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in context.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information.
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 clearly states the action ('Stop') and the target resource ('the web interface'), specifying it only applies 'if it is running'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_web_monitor' and 'web_monitor_status' by focusing on termination. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools for differentiation, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.
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 context ('if it is running'), suggesting it should be used when the web interface is active. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives like 'start_web_monitor' for starting or 'web_monitor_status' for checking status, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.