screen_record_stopStops the active recording, finalizes the .mov, and writes the marker timeline JSON (§6) next to it. Returns the video path, duration, resolution, marker_count and markers_path. Returns no_active_session if nothing is recording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Ignored; kept for older clients. | |
| session_id | No | Optional; the single active session is used if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirm / descriptionPrevious value: -"Must be true to stop and save the recording. Without it the call returns a preview and the recording goes on."New value: +"Ignored; kept for older clients."Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Must be true to stop and save the recording. Without it the call returns a preview and the recording goes on.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations mark it as destructive, the description provides rich behavioral details (finalizing .mov, writing JSON, and listing specific metadata like duration and marker_count) that go far beyond the hints, providing essential operational context.
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 highly structured and efficient, covering the action, the side effects, the success return values, and the failure state in a single, logically progressing paragraph without any filler.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, this description provides maximum contextual completeness by detailing exactly what the tool returns on success and what it returns when no active session exists.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already details the parameters. The description mentions the optional nature of session_id but adds no meaning or semantic value to the parameters beyond what is technically provided in the schema.
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 purpose is perfectly clear: it specifies stopping the active recording, finalizes the .mov, and writes the marker timeline JSON. This is highly specific and leaves no ambiguity for an AI agent.
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 provides clear guidance on handling an edge case: returning no_active_session if no recording is ongoing. This prevents the agent from attempting to stop something that isn't running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.