Stop a running database to reduce costs, pause activity, or prepare for maintenance. Use this action when you need to power down a database without deleting it.
Turns the database off. (scope: databases:write)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Database ID | |
| workspace_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the scope 'databases:write,' which is useful context for permissions. It does not contradict annotations and provides a clear behavioral statement, though it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether data is preserved), but given the non-destructive annotation, this is adequate.
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 concise sentence with an essential scope note. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, and the format is efficient.
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?
The tool is simple, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the description and schema together leave the workspace_id parameter unexplained, which is a gap for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but that is not required for a stop operation. The description is adequate for the core action but incomplete regarding the optional parameter, making it only partially complete.
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%: the 'id' parameter has a description ('Database ID'), but 'workspace_id' has none. The description does not clarify the role of workspace_id or any parameter semantics. With half the parameters undocumented and no compensation from the description, an agent may be uncertain about whether workspace_id is required or its purpose. This is a significant 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 description clearly states the action: 'Turns the database off.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope note '(scope: databases:write)' reinforces the intended operation. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like start_database, reset_database, and delete_database, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage (when you want to shut down a database) and is self-explanatory given the tool name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with reset_database or delete_database. For a simple stop operation, the context is clear enough, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.