Close a live session and get a short run summary (total steps, duration). Frees the session. Free, no token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "A JSON object (returned as text in result.content[0].text). Diagnosis tools return {matched, family, fix, confidence, source, action_class, auto_safe, gate}; other tools return their own JSON result.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: it states the session is freed/consumed by the call and that it is free with no token cost, which an agent cannot derive from structured fields.
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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the primary effect (closing the session) precedes secondary details (summary, cost).
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 one-parameter lifecycle tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly, including the cost cue. Only the input parameter's identity/format is left undocumented.
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 0% and the description never mentions session_id, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, keeping this at the 'adequate' baseline rather than failing.
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 ('Close a live session') plus the outcome ('get a short run summary'). It is clearly distinguishable from session_start/session_step by the 'close' verb, though it does not name them 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: 'Close a live session' suggests calling this when work on a session is finished, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance relative to session_step or session_start.
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.