Stops the active audio recording to end capture and finalize the current SDR audio session.
Stop the current audio recording
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "audio_record_stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say what happens to the captured audio (file location, format, whether it is saved or discarded), whether the call fails if no recording is in progress, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a no-argument stop command, though it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
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 zero-parameter control tool, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows the action but not the outcome or error conditions. With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the call returns (e.g., a file path or confirmation) and does not.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, though it also offers no schema to complement.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ("Stop" + "audio recording"), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools recording_stop and recording_start, so an agent cannot tell whether audio_record_stop and recording_stop are the same operation or act on different subsystems.
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 statement of when to use this versus recording_stop or when not to call it (e.g., if no recording is active). The only implied usage is the obvious pairing with audio_record_start, which the description never mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.