Stop autoguiding in N.I.N.A. astronomy software to deactivate corrective tracking adjustments.
Stop autoguiding.
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": "nina_guider_stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'stop autoguiding' but does not specify whether the tool is safe to call when autoguiding is not running, whether it has side effects, or what happens after stopping. The behavior is implied but not transparent.
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?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no filler or redundancy. Every word is necessary and earns its place. It is front-loaded with the essential action.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose. However, it lacks any contextual details about state requirements, error conditions, or typical usage flow. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
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 zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but for a parameterless tool, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema already conveys all necessary information.
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 'Stop autoguiding' clearly states the action (stop) and the resource (autoguiding). It is a specific verb+resource combination that uniquely identifies the tool's function, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'nina_guider_start'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., autoguiding must be active) or context (e.g., used after starting). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.