vibecloud_stopStop a running cloud service by service ID, with optional sandbox mode for zero-cost testing. Use for lifecycle management in monacloud-mcp.
Alias tương thích; dùng cloud_service_stop cho tích hợp mới.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sandbox | No | sandbox=true: thử 0đ, không cần ví | |
| service_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond calling itself an alias—no mention of side effects, authentication, or what stopping destroys. With safety annotations covering the profile, this contributes almost nothing.
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 sentence with no wasted words and front-loads both the alias nature and the alternative. It is appropriately sized for a compatibility alias, though it could afford one more clause about the actual operation.
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 simple stop-alias with two parameters, the description omits the core action, parameter meanings, and any behavioral detail. Annotations help with the safety profile but not with invocation semantics. The definition is incomplete for an agent that has not already inspected the sibling cloud_service_stop.
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 50%: sandbox is described in the schema, but service_id is not described anywhere. The description provides no parameter information at all, leaving the required service_id semantics undocumented and failing to compensate for the 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 title identifies this as the old alias of cloud_service_stop and the description confirms it is a compatible alias. However, the description never states the actual operation (stopping a cloud service); it relies on the name and title to convey purpose. This is a vague purpose statement, though it does distinguish the tool's role as an alias.
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 explicitly directs new integrations to cloud_service_stop, giving a clear when-not-to-use-this signal. It does not state when to use this alias (legacy compatibility), but the alternative is named and the condition is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.