Stop the live interact session associated with a scrapeId and release its resources. Returns a success confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scrapeId | Yes | ||
| conversationId | No | conversationId from any earlier Firecrawl tool result in this conversation; after parallel calls, any one of theirs. Omit only on the first call of a conversation; the result returns one to pass on every later call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact (releases session resources) and the return shape (success confirmation), but omits whether the call is idempotent, what happens if the scrapeId is unknown or the session already ended, and whether an error is thrown.
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?
Two short sentences, the action and its effect front-loaded, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 two-parameter teardown tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it releases, and that it returns a confirmation. The remaining gap is failure/idempotency behavior and the origin of scrapeId, which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.
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 coverage is 50%: conversationId is richly documented in the schema, but scrapeId has no schema description. The description only restates that scrapeId identifies the session, without saying where it comes from (a prior firecrawl_interact result) or that conversationId is optional here.
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 a specific verb and resource ("Stop the live interact session associated with a scrapeId") plus the side effect (releases resources). The term "interact session" implicitly ties it to the firecrawl_interact sibling and makes the teardown role obvious, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the cleanup call after a live interact session. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g. at end of session vs. on error), no exclusion, and no named alternative such as letting the session expire.
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.