abox_live_stopClose a selected companion browser session, release capture and peer connections, and remove incomplete receive files while preserving completed local saves.
Close the selected companion browser, release capture and peer connections, and remove incomplete receive files. Completed local saves remain. Closing an already closed session is harmless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only give generic flags; the description adds real substance by disclosing exactly what is torn down, that completed local saves survive, and that repeat-close is harmless. The 'harmless when already closed' claim sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but it is a nuance rather than a reversal; permission requirements remain unstated.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the destructive-effects disclosure front-loaded. No filler or repetition; only the missing parameter sentence keeps it from being ideal.
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?
Effects and cleanup semantics are well covered, but for a mutation tool with no output schema the agent gets no success/failure signal and no documentation of the one required argument. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
There is a single required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. 'The selected companion browser' hints at a session reference but gives no format, no source for obtaining the id, and no indication of what an invalid id does.
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?
Names a concrete verb ('Close') and enumerates the specific resources torn down: companion browser, capture, peer connections, incomplete receive files. An agent can tell this is a teardown of a live session, though it never explicitly maps the action to the 'session' concept in the tool name or to sibling session tools like abox_live_status.
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: you call it to end a live session. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of checking abox_live_status first, and no guidance on obtaining the session id or whether this should follow a failure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.