Stops an active PPK2 current and logic capture and saves samples to disk, returning the same summary as a capture run.
停止长采集并落盘,返回与 capture 相同的摘要。
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": "stop_capture"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capture_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that stopping persists data to disk and returns a capture-like summary, but omits permissions, error behavior, idempotency, and what happens if no capture is running.
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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action and side effect, with no filler or redundancy.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the description is incomplete. It should clarify capture_id semantics and the behavior when capture_id is omitted.
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 single optional capture_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot learn what it identifies, whether it can be omitted, or what a null value means.
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: stops a long capture, persists it to disk, and returns the same summary as capture. The 'stop' action clearly distinguishes it from start_capture and capture, though it does not name sibling tools 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?
Usage is implied: call it to stop an in-progress long capture. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing against alternatives like get_capture_status or analyze_capture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.