mitmweb_stopStop an active mitmweb session to free captured traffic ports. Provide the session UUID to terminate it, optionally forcing shutdown after a timeout.
Stop an active mitmweb session and release listen and web ports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool terminates a session and releases listen/web ports, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not mention shutdown behavior like graceful termination versus SIGKILL, cleanup of child processes, or impact on captured flows.
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 concise sentence front-loads the primary action and includes a useful consequence. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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?
The description is minimally sufficient for a straightforward stop operation: it names the resource, the action, and the port-releasing effect. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves an agent to infer important context around forced termination, timeout behavior, and how this differs from stopping mitmdump sessions.
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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema visibly documents session_id, force, and timeout_seconds, but the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage; therefore the description should compensate and does not. An agent can infer that session_id refers to the session to stop, but force and timeout semantics are left entirely to the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Stop an active mitmweb session and release listen and web ports.' It clearly identifies what the tool acts on and adds a concrete consequence (releasing ports). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mitmdump_stop, so it misses the top score.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as mitmdump_stop or when a session should be stopped. 'Stop an active mitmweb session' only implies the basic use case; it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.