Waggle-mcp

close_context_window

Close a finished chat session to finalize its graph embedding, refresh node counts, and derive cross-window edges for accurate knowledge graph memory.

Instructions

Close a context window, recompute its final graph embedding, refresh node counts, and derive cross-window edges. Use when a chat/session is complete.

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": {
      "window_id": "<window_id>"
    },
    "name": "close_context_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window_id`	Yes	ID of the context window to close.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.10Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses internal actions (recompute embedding, refresh counts, derive edges) beyond the user-facing close action. While it stops short of explaining authorization needs or irreversible effects, it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The action verb 'close' is front-loaded, and the supporting details follow efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values or side effects. It does not address what the tool returns or whether it is reversible. Additionally, with no annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, performance) would be beneficial. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the 'window_id' parameter beyond what the schema already describes. Parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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 clearly states the tool closes a context window and lists specific operations (recompute embedding, refresh counts, derive cross-window edges). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_context_windows' or 'get_context_window' by indicating it is a closing action.

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 includes 'Use when a chat/session is complete,' which provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would strengthen guidelines.

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