Stop an active recording and return a contact sheet with full-resolution frame paths for analyzing motion and UI transitions.
Stop the recording started by start_recording and return the contact sheet (plus full-resolution frame paths), exactly like record. Errors if no recording is in progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns a contact sheet plus full-resolution frame paths and raises an error when no recording is active. It omits finer side-effect detail (state teardown, reversibility), but the error contract and return content are the key traits.
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 front-loaded sentence covering action, return value, and error condition with no waste. The precondition and error semantics are placed where the agent will read them first.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description proactively describes the return payload (contact sheet + frame paths) and the failure mode, which is exactly what is needed for a no-param terminal operation. Only minor omissions (post-stop state) keep it from a 5.
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 is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly adds no spurious parameter discussion.
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 (the recording), and names the sibling that starts it (start_recording), so an agent can place it precisely in the lifecycle. The reference to 'record' clarifies the expected return shape, distinguishing it from get_frame and capture.
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?
Implies the correct usage context by tying itself to start_recording and stating it errors when no recording is in progress, which tells the agent the required precondition. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the lifecycle binding is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.