mp_capture_stopStops the mitmdump capture process and returns the captured file path and request count for the session.
停止 mitmdump 抓包进程，返回捕获的文件路径和请求数。
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": "mp_capture_stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the observable outcome (returning the captured file path and request count), which is useful behavior beyond the schema, but it is silent on failure modes, such as whether it errors when nothing is capturing, and on whether the capture file is persisted or discarded.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and then states the return payload, with no filler at all. Nothing is wasted, and nothing essential is left out.
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?
This is a simple zero-parameter teardown tool with no output schema, and the description covers both the effect and the return values an agent needs in order to use the result. The only real gap is the absence of failure-condition behavior.
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; the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless invocation.
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 plus resource in '停止 mitmdump 抓包进程' (stop the mitmdump capture process), which pins down both the action and the target daemon. 'stop' also makes it the natural counterpart to the mp_capture_start sibling, though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: it is clearly the teardown step after a capture has been started, but the description never says when to call it, or what to expect if no capture is running. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.