Halt ongoing network capture and retrieve total statistics for inspection.
Stop capturing and report totals.
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_network_capture"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden. It discloses the action and a basic output ('report totals') but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether capture data is cleared, if it can be called without an active capture, or any state changes). This is minimal for a tool that likely mutates state.
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?
Single short sentence, front-loaded, no filler. Extremely concise and to the point.
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 tool is simple but the description omits crucial context: it does not clarify what 'totals' includes, how it differs from get_network_summary, or that it should be called after start_network_capture. Without output schema, the description leaves ambiguity about return format and usage preconditions.
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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter explanation since there are none.
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 clearly states the action ('stop capturing') and the output ('report totals'). It distinguishes from siblings: start_network_capture initiates, get_network_summary likely reads without stopping, while this stops the capture and provides totals.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must have an active capture) or contrast with get_network_summary or start_network_capture. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and sibling presence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.