Skip to main content
Glama

oz_shutdown

Wind down a project and keep it resumable: broadcast stop, stash every uncommitted change across worktrees, and record each stash by feature. Use force to release open claims when killing processes.

Instructions

Wind the project down and leave it resumable. Broadcasts stop, then stashes every uncommitted change in every worktree — untracked files included — and records where, tying each stash to the feature it belongs to. Does NOT wait for workers: waiting on one that may not poll again turns a wind-down into a vigil, and anything written afterwards is caught by the next run. Use force:true to also release every open claim, which is the 'kill it' form — deliberate, because releasing a live worker's claim invites two workers onto one feature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoDirectory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree.
noteNoWhy, recorded on the directive.
actorNo
forceNoAlso release every open claim. For when processes are being killed rather than asked to stop.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so excellently. It reveals operation ordering, broad stash scope including untracked files, non-blocking behavior, and the specific hazard of force releasing a live worker's claim.

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?

Four sentences deliver purpose, mechanism, a stated non-wait rationale, and force guidance without redundancy. Every clause adds information, and the most important safety caveat is placed at the end where it gets focused emphasis.

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 side-effect-heavy shutdown with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow, side effects, ordering, and risks well. It stops short of full completeness by not describing the return/confirmation format or explicitly pointing to stash_restore as the resumption path.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 75%, which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds real value by expanding force beyond its schema text into a deliberate kill-it action with a concrete risk, and by tying cwd to worktree behavior. actor remains undocumented in both, but its meaning is conventional enough not to be a critical gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Wind the project down') and expands into concrete actions: broadcast stop, stash all uncommitted changes in every worktree, and record where each stash lives. This uniquely identifies oz_shutdown among siblings and also explains what 'shutdown' means in this system.

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?

It gives explicit context on when to use force:true, calling it the deliberate 'kill it' form, and explains why the tool deliberately does not wait for workers. It does not name alternative sibling tools for partial or per-feature shutdown, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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