Skip to main content
Glama

Blackbook Protocol Advisor

by io.github.koynlabs

End browser session

end_browser_session
DestructiveIdempotent

Tear down the assisted browser session. No credentials are persisted. Safe to call more than once for the same id after expiry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesEphemeral co-pilot session id returned by start_browser_session. Example: 8f3c2a1b-4d5e-6789-abcd-ef0123456789

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boundaryYesEducational / non-advice boundary when the tool includes one

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable specifics: credentials are not persisted and repeated calls after expiry are safe. This enriches the annotation data without contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, a credential-safety detail, and idempotency guidance without any filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter teardown tool with rich annotations, a full schema, and an output schema, the description covers all essential behavior. Nothing missing would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents sessionId and provides an example and provenance. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referencing 'same id', which matches the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Tear down') and resource ('assisted browser session'), making the action unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling start_browser_session by describing the teardown counterpart.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use it—after an assisted browser session—and adds useful guidance about calling it again after expiry. It does not explicitly name start_browser_session as the alternative or state the exact workflow position, but the pairing is evident from context.

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

All Blackbook Protocol Advisor toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool occupies a distinct step in the intake-to-submission pipeline, with clearly paired tools like prepare_submit_confirmation/confirm_and_submit. A few knowledge/checklist tools such as get_module_playbook, get_skill, and search_book could overlap at the margins, but their descriptions separate modules, workflow skills, and cited passages well enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case action_object naming like get_*, list_*, prepare_*, fill_fields, and open_portal. Minor deviations such as confirm_and_submit and wait_for_user_ready are still imperative and readable, so the naming remains predictable overall.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. The broad advisory/portal-automation scope mostly justifies the count, but several browser-session helpers and guidance/checklist tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing core capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow: intake, risk assessment, guidance, module/skill selection, drafting and review bundles, self-serve or assisted browsing, form filling, and guarded submission. Minor gaps like updating intake data or checking post-submission status are workable rather than fatal.

Resources