Stops network recording on a tab and detaches the debugger while preserving captured logs for review.
Stops network recording and detaches the debugger from the tab (the log already captured stays readable).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | Yes | Your tab's id (from browser_new_tab, or a tab adopted with browser_adopt_tab). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.31.6Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "browser_network_stopOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only behavior, and the description adds the non-obvious consequence that the captured log survives the detach. It also discloses the extra side effect (debugger detach) beyond merely stopping recording. It does not say whether the debugger session is required or what error/return state to expect.
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?
One sentence, action verb first, with the clarifying parenthetical placed where it matters. No redundant restatement of the tool name or 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 simple one-parameter lifecycle tool with full schema coverage and informative annotations, the description covers the two things an agent could get wrong: whether stopping loses data, and that the debugger is detached. No output schema exists, but the return shape is not consequential here.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains tab_id and its origin. The description adds no additional meaning about tab_id, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 two specific verbs and their resources: 'stops network recording' and 'detaches the debugger from the tab'. This is unmistakably the counterpart of browser_network_record and is distinguishable at a glance from read-only siblings like browser_network_requests.
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 parenthetical '(the log already captured stays readable)' tells the agent it does not need to drain results before stopping, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of saying the recording must have been started with browser_network_record, or what happens if no recording is active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.