memory_session_closeClose a working-memory session.
If distill is true (default), the transcript is queued for the
background worker to summarize into durable org-scoped memories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| distill | No | Enqueue for distillation into semantic/episodic memory | |
| session_id | Yes | Session id to close |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that closing queues the transcript for background distillation into durable org-scoped memories when distill is true, which is a meaningful side effect. It does not mention idempotency or what happens if distill is false, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 two focused sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary behavioral detail about the default distill behavior.
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 tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and the important background-distillation side effect. It could mention irreversibility or the effect of distill=false, but the available information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about 'durable org-scoped memories' for distill, but does not significantly extend the meaning of session_id beyond what the schema provides.
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 phrase 'Close a working-memory session' names a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_session_open, memory_session_append, and memory_session_get. The additional sentence about distillation clarifies the incidental behavior without muddying the primary purpose.
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 makes it obvious that this tool is used when a working-memory session should be ended, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling session tools or mention any exclusions. Usage is clear by implication rather than by explicit guidance.
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.
With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).
The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.