Halts the active IQ recording and finalizes the capture for later signal analysis.
Stop the current IQ 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": "recording_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, the description carries the full burden and does not discharge it. It never says whether the captured IQ data is finalized and written to disk, where the file lands, whether repeated calls are safe, or whether an in-flight recording is lost — all critical for a state-changing stop operation.
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 six-word sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.
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, no-output-schema tool the description covers the core action, but it omits the state semantics that matter most for a stop call: the prerequisite of an active recording and the fate of the recorded data. Adequate to invoke, incomplete to reason about consequences.
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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: "Stop" + "the current IQ recording." The qualifier "IQ" distinguishes it from the sibling audio_record_stop and from pager_stop_decoding / satellite_stop_decoding, so an agent can pick the right stop tool without opening the schema. It falls short of 5 only because it never names the counterpart recording_start explicitly.
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 word "current" hints that a recording must already be in progress, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g. a recording started via recording_start must be active), and no statement of what happens if called with no active recording. No alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer the start/stop pairing from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.