mobile_stop_screen_recordingStop an active screen recording on a mobile device and return the file path, size, and approximate duration.
Stop an active screen recording on a mobile device. Returns the file path, size, and approximate duration of the recording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | The device identifier to use. Use mobile_list_available_devices to find which devices are available to you. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.0.53Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description usefully adds the return payload (file path, size, duration), but says nothing about what happens if no recording is active or whether the file persists afterward.
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 tight sentences: purpose first, return values second. No filler, no redundancy with the title.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields. For a single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete, though the failure mode (no active recording) is left unaddressed.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the device identifier and even points to mobile_list_available_devices. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.
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+resource (stop an active screen recording) and scopes it to a mobile device. The contrast with the sibling mobile_start_screen_recording is obvious from the verb, but the description never names or references the sibling 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 by the phrase 'an active screen recording' — the agent can infer this applies when a recording is in progress, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no error case for when nothing is recording, and no routing to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.