Stop an iOS screen recording started by ios_record_start. Sends SIGTERM to the remux pipeline so the mp4 has a valid moov atom. Returns hostPath, sizeBytes, durationMs, and codec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recordingId | Yes | recordingId returned by ios_record_start |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that SIGTERM is sent to the remux pipeline so the mp4 has a valid moov atom (explaining the termination mechanism and ensuring file validity). It also lists the return fields (hostPath, sizeBytes, durationMs, codec), which gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output.
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?
Three sentences, zero filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the termination mechanism, and the third lists the return values. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and highly scannable.
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 single-parameter stop tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is appropriately complete. It explains what will be returned (listing the fields inline), discloses the mechanism (SIGTERM/remux for valid moov atom), and links to its start counterpart. It doesn't explain error behavior if recordingId is invalid or the recording never started, but for a pair-tool stop operation this is adequate.
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 100%, with the single recordingId parameter fully documented as 'recordingId returned by ios_record_start'. The description reinforces this by referencing the paired tool. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema's description already carries the semantic weight; the description adds marginal context by confirming the provenance of the ID.
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 this tool stops an iOS screen recording initiated by ios_record_start, with a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('iOS screen recording'). It explicitly references the paired start tool, which distinguishes it from generic device_record_stop and clarifies its scope.
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 establishes clear when-to-use context: it must be paired with ios_record_start and requires the recordingId from that tool. However, it doesn't explicitly note when NOT to use this in favor of alternatives like device_record_stop or ios_record_cleanup, though the IOS-specific pairing is strongly implied.
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.
The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.
The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).
333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.
The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.
