Manos MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Stop network capture

network_stop

Stop capturing network traffic on a device: detach Frida, stop mitmproxy, and restore the macOS proxy. Provide the device ID to end monitoring.

Instructions

Stop capturing (detach Frida / stop mitmproxy and restore the macOS proxy).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>"
    },
    "name": "network_stop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_id`	Yes	Device id from list_devices (adb serial like 'emulator-5554', or an iOS simulator UDID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses concrete behaviors: detaching Frida, stopping mitmproxy, and restoring the macOS proxy. This provides meaningful context about side effects (restoring system proxy settings) beyond simply saying 'stop'. It does not contradict any annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and peppers in specific details. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the behavior and side effects. It could mention the relationship to network_start (e.g., stops a capture started by that tool), but the operation is clearly a shutdown/cleanup action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the device_id parameter is clearly described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses an imperative verb ('Stop capturing') and specifies the exact resources involved (Frida, mitmproxy, macOS proxy). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like network_start and network_clear by indicating it detaches/stops and restores the proxy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that this tool is used to stop an ongoing network capture, but it does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives like network_clear or network_mock. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of pairing with network_start.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.