Stops VLC media playback so AI clients can end the current audio or video from a natural-language request.
Stop VLC playback.
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": "vlc_stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is neither destructive nor idempotent, but the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not say whether stop releases the media/playlist, whether the playback position is resettable afterwards, or what happens if nothing is playing.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to minimal than to optimized, since no clarifying clause was included.
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 tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is adequate but thin: the effect on playlist/position state and the no-op case are left for the agent to guess. No output schema exists, so the description would ideally say what state results from a stop.
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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the action itself. Schema coverage is also 100% trivially.
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 (stop) and resource (VLC playback), so the action is unambiguous. It is nearly a restatement of the tool name vlc_stop, and it does not articulate the stop-vs-pause distinction against the sibling vlc_pause, but an agent can still infer it.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb: call this when playback should be halted rather than paused. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of vlc_pause as the alternative, and no note on prerequisites such as an active playback session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.