Interrupts the current keyboard sequence and releases any keys that are currently held down.
Interrupt the running sequence and release all held keys.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sequence_stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true) behavior, so the description builds on that by specifying exactly what happens: interrupting the sequence and releasing all held keys. This adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe edge cases like whether it fails if no sequence is running.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and its outcome. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-argument, no-output tool, the description is nearly complete. It states the action and result. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from release_all, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations already covering safety, the description is effectively sufficient.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no burden to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to add; the schema is trivially complete.
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 states a specific verb ('Interrupt') and resource ('running sequence') plus the immediate effect ('release all held keys'). It clearly distinguishes this from sequence_start (starts a sequence) and release_all (releases keys but not specifically tied to a running sequence). No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.
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 description implies when to use it (to stop a running sequence) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like release_all or key_up. An agent must infer the differentiation from the name and context rather than receiving direct guidance. This is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.