stop_videoStops the video currently playing in a broadcast, leaving the broadcast open. Use it to end playback started by play_video without closing the room.
Stops the video play_video started. The broadcast stays open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | The meeting_id of the room (from create_broadcast or join_broadcast). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context — the broadcast is left open, so this is a scoped stop, not a teardown — but it says nothing about what happens if no video is currently playing, whether the stop is immediate for all viewers, or error behavior.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key state consequence. No filler, though it is perhaps terse for a tool with no annotations.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema action tool the description covers the essentials: what stops, the counterpart that started it, and the resulting broadcast state. The main gap is the no-op / error case when nothing is playing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single meeting_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance (create_broadcast or join_broadcast). The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable since the schema already does the work.
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?
Specific verb (stops) plus resource (the video), tied directly to the sibling play_video that started it, and the phrase 'the broadcast stays open' implicitly differentiates it from end_broadcast. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 implied by the reference to play_video (call it after starting a video) and by 'the broadcast stays open', which hints that end_broadcast is a separate action. Neither the when-not condition nor the end_broadcast alternative is stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.