Gracefully shuts down a Windows 98 VM: requests guest shutdown, waits 40 seconds, then stops only that QEMU process if needed.
Request graceful guest shutdown, wait 40 seconds, then stop only this QEMU process if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable specifics beyond that: the shutdown is graceful first, the operation blocks for 40 seconds, and the fallback stop is scoped to 'only this QEMU process.' This two-phase escalation and scoping is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations.
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?
One 16-word sentence conveys three behavioral phases (graceful, wait, conditional stop) with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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?
The full shutdown protocol, timing, and scope are disclosed, and the destructive nature is covered by annotations while vm_id format is in the schema. Minor gaps: no indication of what the response looks like (no output schema exists) and no pointer to qemu_vm_status for post-condition verification.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented vm_id parameter. The phrase 'only this QEMU process' implicitly ties vm_id to the target VM, and the parameter name plus tool name make the meaning inferable, but the description never explicitly defines vm_id or explains where valid IDs come from. This is only partial compensation for the 0% coverage gap.
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+resource (graceful guest shutdown of a QEMU VM) and a precise three-phase behavior: request graceful shutdown, wait 40 seconds, then stop only the QEMU process if needed. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like qemu_vm_force_stop (immediate kill), qemu_vm_restart, and system_shutdown (host-level).
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 graceful-first, timeout-fallback framing gives clear context for when to use this tool — when a clean guest shutdown with a guaranteed stop is desired. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use (e.g., qemu_vm_force_stop for immediate termination), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.