srift_close_sessionClose the active session. Flushes E2EE keys, disconnects signaling, clears chat history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | Confirmation message | |
| success | No | True if session was closed cleanly |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Confirmation message",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True if session was closed cleanly",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by naming concrete side effects: flushing E2EE keys, disconnecting signaling, and clearing chat history. This gives the agent specific knowledge of what will be destroyed or reset, which is exactly what a destructive operation needs.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first, then lists three meaningful consequences. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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 zero-parameter destructive operation with annotations and an output schema already present, the description fully covers what the tool does and what effects it has. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and anticipate consequences.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to clarify, and the description correctly focuses on the operation's behavior rather than inventing parameter details.
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: 'Close the active session.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like start_session, join_session, and kick_user by focusing on terminating the entire session rather than joining, starting, or managing users.
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 this tool is for ending an active session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It could be stronger by mentioning that individual-user removal is handled by kick_user or that starting a new session is handled by start_session. The context is clear enough to infer, but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.