Stops serving a named procedure previously registered with mesh_serve; safely does nothing if that name was never registered.
Stop serving a procedure registered by mesh_serve, by the name it was given. No-op if it was never registered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name passed to mesh_serve. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.37.0Input schema / properties / nameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The name passed to mesh_serve.",
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / procedureRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The procedure name to stop serving, as passed to mesh_serve.",
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "procedure"
-]New value: +[
+ "name"
+]v0.28.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose idempotency ('No-op if it was never registered') — a genuinely useful trait. However it says nothing about permissions/authorization, whether in-flight calls or existing registrations are affected, or what happens on name mismatch.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the edge case (never registered) following immediately.
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 teardown tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter binding, and the idempotent edge case, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves permission/error behavior unstated, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 single parameter is fully documented as 'The name passed to mesh_serve.' The description's 'by the name it was given' restates that same binding rather than adding new format or casing rules, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (stop serving) and a specific resource (a procedure registered by mesh_serve), and ties the resource back to the sibling tool that creates it. An agent can distinguish this from mesh_serve and the other mesh_* tools without opening any schema.
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?
Frames the tool as the undo counterpart of mesh_serve, so the trigger condition (a procedure you previously served) is clear, and it adds the no-op condition for a procedure that was never registered. It stops short of explicit 'when not to use' or naming alternative teardown paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.