Terminate the active mock bridge to end testing sessions or reset the environment. Stops the simulated After Effects server, allowing for cleanup or new test configurations.
Stop the currently running mock bridge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe the effects of stopping the bridge (e.g., does it clear queued responses? What happens to received requests?), nor does it mention error handling if no bridge is running. For a state-changing tool, this is minimal.
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?
One sentence with no waste, front-loading the action. Efficient and to the point.
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 the tool is a simple stop action with zero parameters, the description is minimal but lacks essential context such as idempotency, side effects, and how it interacts with sibling tools like start_mock_bridge. The absence of annotations heightens the need for behavioral detail.
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 has 0 parameters)Skip meaning no parameters to explain, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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 uses the verb 'Stop' with the resource 'mock bridge', making the action clear. It does not explicitly name its sibling 'start_mock_bridge', but the inverse relationship is obvious from the name and description.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool instead of others. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., does a bridge need to be running?) or what happens if none is running. It simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.