mobile_stop_screen_recordingStop an active screen recording on a mobile device and get the file path, size, and approximate duration of the saved recording.
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.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the return info but does not disclose potential error cases (e.g., if no recording is active) or side effects beyond stopping. It provides some value over annotations but not rich behavioral context.
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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the return values. Every word earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, the prerequisite (active recording implied), and the return payload. It omits explicit error handling but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the device parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.
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), the resource (screen recording on a mobile device), and even mentions the return values (file path, size, duration). It is specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like mobile_start_screen_recording.
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 phrase 'active screen recording' implies it should be used only when a recording is in progress, and the sibling context makes the alternative (start_screen_recording) obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.