opencode-cli-mcp

by sandraschi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

opencode_shutdown

Destructive

Shut down this MCP server process gracefully.

Instructions

Shut down this MCP server process gracefully.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": dict}

Examples

opencode_shutdown(confirm=True, reason="maintenance window") opencode_shutdown(confirm=False)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No	Optional reason, recorded in stderr before exit.
`confirm`	No	Must be True to shut down the server.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.11Oct 21, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "data": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "message": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "success": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "success",
+  "message",
+  "data"
+]

First observedv0.2.3Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds that shutdown is graceful and that the optional reason is written to stderr, but it does not disclose the impact on active runs, sessions, or whether shutdown is irreversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose before return format and examples. The return format section duplicates the existing output schema, but it is brief and does not significantly harm readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is low-complexity, has full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, and the description provides enough to identify and invoke it. The main missing context is the operational impact of a destructive shutdown, which is only partially covered by the destructive annotation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The examples add invocation shape, but the confirm=False example is ambiguous because the schema says confirm must be True to shut down, and the description does not explain what that example would accomplish.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Shut down this MCP server process gracefully.' It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools such as opencode_server_status, opencode_get_health, and opencode_cancel_run.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The examples imply the tool is used with confirm=True, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what confirm=False actually does. Usage is inferable from the name but not fully guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.