Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Agenterm

by net.agenterm
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

close_client

Destructive

Close selected online devices for this token. Pass client_ids from list_client to close only those devices. Omit client_ids to close all online devices and revoke the token and its invitations, including when no devices are online. Every ID must belong to this token. Closing a device stops its sessions and active transfers.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "client_token": "<client_token>"
    },
    "name": "close_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_idsNoUnique device IDs from list_client. Omit to close all online devices and revoke the token and its invitations; an empty array is not allowed.
client_tokenYesControl credential in token:key format, required with management access (including stdio and no-password mode). Scoped control bearer access implicitly selects its own token.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_idsYesIDs of devices closed by this call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the surprising escalation that omitting client_ids revokes the token and its invitations even when no devices are online. It also discloses the side effect that closing a device stops its sessions and active transfers, which is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact, with the default-scope risk front-loaded in the second sentence before the secondary side-effect note. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing: scope semantics, ownership constraint, and side effects are all stated, and return values are covered by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint not present in the schema: every ID must belong to this token. That ownership requirement is genuinely new information, though it does not explain the token:key format itself.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Close selected online devices for this token.' It also names the sibling tool list_client as the source of IDs, so an agent can distinguish it from create_client and the session_* tools without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states both usage modes explicitly: pass client_ids to close only those devices, or omit them to close everything and revoke the token. It also routes the agent to list_client for obtaining IDs, which is the concrete when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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

All Agenterm toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources