Stop the serial monitor while keeping buffered output readable through next_chunk, allowing polling to continue without blocking on long-running serial reads.
Stop the serial monitor. Buffered output remains readable via next_chunk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 carries the full burden. It discloses the important non-obvious trait that stopping does not discard buffered output and that next_chunk remains valid afterwards — a real behavioral detail beyond the name. It does not cover side effects on an in-progress monitor session or auth/state requirements, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the follow-up capability second. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key post-stop behavior. It is essentially complete for a zero-parameter control tool, with only minor room to state whether the monitor session itself is torn down.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.
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 ('Stop the serial monitor') and immediately contrasts with the sibling workflow by noting buffered output stays readable via next_chunk. An agent can distinguish this from start_buffering and next_chunk without opening any 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 gives clear context for post-call behavior and implicitly routes the agent to next_chunk if buffered data is still needed. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' clause or stated exclusions, but the workflow positioning is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.