Stop the active browser recording and return the directory containing its captured data.
Stop the active recording and return its directory.
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": "browser_stop_recording"
}
}| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the stop action and the return of a directory, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the recording is saved, whether it is resumable, what happens if no active recording exists).
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 filler. It states the action and the return value with zero redundancy.
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, the description is largely adequate: it states the action and return value. However, it does not mention whether an active recording is required or what happens if one is absent, leaving minor ambiguity in edge cases.
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 has 100% coverage of nothing, so the description adds no parameter semantics—but none are needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.
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 ('Stop') and resource ('active recording') and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool browser_start_recording, which is the inverse action. It is unambiguous and tells an agent exactly what operation is performed.
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 wording implies the tool should be used when a recording is already active, likely after browser_start_recording, but it does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.