Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SensorForge MCP Server

SensorForge MCP Server

by sidupreti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Stop a run

stop_run
DestructiveIdempotent

Stops a queued or running run, such as one submitted with the wrong chip or data. A stopped run returns no result; submit it again to rerun.

Instructions

Stop a queued or running run, for example one sent with the wrong chip or data. A stopped run gives no result; submit it again to rerun.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "stop_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYesThe run id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top by explaining the consequence — a stopped run yields no result and must be resubmitted — which tells the agent this discards pending work. It does not mention permissions or what the call itself returns.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero filler; the accepted run states are front-loaded and the consequence/remedy follows immediately.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, this is nearly complete — it covers scope, consequence, and recovery. The only minor gap is that 'gives no result' refers to the run's output rather than the tool's response, which an agent could briefly misread.

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% for the single run_id parameter, so the schema carries the documentation burden. The description adds no extra meaning about run_id format or where to obtain it, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Names a specific verb (stop) and resource (run) and scopes it to 'queued or running' runs, which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like run_status or wait_for_run that observe runs rather than terminate them.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete triggering scenario ('for example one sent with the wrong chip or data') and a follow-up action ('submit it again to rerun'), which is clear context for when to use it. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or any when-not condition, so it is not a full 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools