end_guest_sessionRevoke this direct guest credential and its continuation links. Does not delete saved stories or sign out an already connected browser. Use only when the user asks to disconnect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guestSession | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "status": {
+ "const": "disconnected",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "guestExpiresAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "guestSession": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "guestSession",
+ "guestExpiresAt"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds useful context beyond those hints by specifying that continuation links are revoked and that saved stories remain and connected browsers are not signed out; it does not discuss permissions or reversibility details.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by critical exclusions and usage guidance. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.
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?
Output return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the sole required input is opaque and undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a meaningful gap for a destructive credential-revocation tool.
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 0% and there is one required parameter, guestSession. The description refers to "this direct guest credential" but does not explain where the credential comes from, what the 64-character hex format represents, or otherwise compensate for the missing schema description.
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 and resource: "Revoke this direct guest credential and its continuation links." It clearly scopes the action with exclusions, but it does not differentiate this tool from any sibling by name or explain why a different sibling would be chosen.
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?
It explicitly says "Use only when the user asks to disconnect," giving a clear usage condition and an implied prohibition on proactive use. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools appear unrelated to guest-session revocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.