Terminate a running background job by its ID to cancel execution and release associated resources.
Stop a job.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether stopping is graceful or immediate, whether in-flight work is lost, whether the call is idempotent on an already-finished job, or what permissions are needed for a mutation.
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 words are trivially front-loaded with zero waste, but the efficiency comes from under-specification rather than disciplined writing. There is no structure to speak of because there is almost no content.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required identifier, the description should explain lifecycle effects and result behavior. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to predict the consequences of the call.
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 0% for the single required parameter "id", and the description does not compensate by saying it is a job identifier or where the caller obtains it. The only signal is that "id" belongs to the job being stopped, which is inferred rather than stated.
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?
"Stop a job" supplies a verb and names the resource (a job), so an agent knows roughly what domain it operates on. But it is barely more than the tool name restated, and it gives no indication of what 'stop' means relative to siblings like cleanup, status, or steer.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as cleanup or wait, nor any precondition (e.g., only for running jobs). An agent must guess from the name alone, which is minimal implicit guidance at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.