Stop the current screen recording, gracefully ending the FFmpeg process to finalize the video file. Retrieve completed session details such as duration and file size.
Stop the currently active screen recording. Sends a graceful shutdown signal to FFmpeg and waits for the file to be finalized. Returns the completed recording session details including duration and file size.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the graceful FFmpeg shutdown signal, the waiting behavior for file finalization, and the returned session details. This gives the agent useful expectations about the tool's execution behavior beyond merely saying 'stop recording'.
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 concise at three sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds valuable information: what it stops, how it stops it, and what it returns. There is no redundant or vague wording.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the mechanism, and the return details well. It could mention what happens if no recording is active, but the level of completeness is otherwise strong for the tool's simplicity.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no ambiguity in the input. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on behavior and output.
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 specific action ('stop'), the resource ('currently active screen recording'), and distinguishes it from siblings like start_recording, get_recording_status, and list_recordings. The verb and resource are unambiguous, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.
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 provides clear context by specifying that it acts on the currently active recording, implying it should be used when a recording is in progress. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.