Stop WAV audio capture in DOSBox to end recording of DOS program audio.
Stop WAV audio capture.
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": "audio_capture_stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates this is not a read-only operation, and the description's 'Stop' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation, such as whether an active WAV file is finalized, what happens if no capture is running, or what the call returns.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and resource immediately, which is ideal for a simple control command.
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 parameterless stop command with no output schema and a minimal annotation, the description is nearly complete: it says exactly what operation is performed. It could add a note about the expected effect on an active capture, but an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.
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 schema has no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly does not introduce any parameter details, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 gives a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('WAV audio capture'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings such as audio_capture_start, audio_capture_status, and video_capture_stop. An agent can identify the correct action without opening the schema.
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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention calling audio_capture_start first, checking audio_capture_status, or any condition that would select this tool over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.