Stops a running or row-loading SQL Editor query by stream ID, issuing KILL QUERY on its own connection after confirming it still runs that statement. Rows already read remain.
Stop a SQL Editor query that is still running or loading rows (KILL QUERY on its own connection, after checking it still runs this statement). The rows read so far stay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stream_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description describes a state-changing operation (KILL QUERY). This is a contradiction: KILL QUERY inherently modifies server state, so readOnlyHint=true is misleading. However, the description itself provides useful behavioral detail: it checks that the connection still runs the statement, and notes that already-read rows remain. The contradiction is with annotations, not the description, but it affects 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?
Single dense sentence that front-loads the action and constraints. No wasted words, and both the mechanism and side effect are stated efficiently.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with only a readOnly annotation, the description covers the core behavior but omits how to obtain stream_id and does not address the annotation contradiction. Given no output schema, it should clarify whether the stop is synchronous and what is returned, but it is minimally adequate.
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 coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter (stream_id). The description does not explain what stream_id represents or how to obtain it. Baseline for one param with no schema description is around 3, but the description adds no parameter meaning, leaving a 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?
States a specific verb (stop) and resource (SQL Editor query), and clarifies scope: only queries 'still running or loading rows'. This distinguishes it from siblings like workload_stop or sas_session_reset, and the parenthetical clarifies the exact mechanism.
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?
Implied usage (when a query is still running or loading rows), but no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives named. Siblings such as sql_editor_state or sql_editor_query could be relevant but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.