Close an active session with an optional summary to prevent orphaned sessions. Always call at run end, even on error, so the summary remains retrievable.
Close an active session with an optional summary. Always call at run end (even on error) to avoid orphaned sessions; summary is retrievable via dakera_session_get.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | No | Optional session summary | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID to end |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.12v0.10.11v0.10.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the consequence of not calling (orphaned sessions) and mentions that the summary is retrievable via another tool, adding behavioral context. However, it does not describe side effects like idempotency, error handling, or what happens if the session is already closed.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and a cross-reference. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and a related tool reference. It lacks a mention of return value or error scenarios, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.
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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal value: it notes that the summary is optional and that it can be retrieved later via dakera_session_get. This does not significantly enhance the schema's documentation.
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 description clearly states the action ('Close') and the resource ('active session'), and mentions the optional summary. It is distinct from sibling tools like dakera_session_start, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly states when to call the tool ('Always call at run end (even on error)') and the reason (to avoid orphaned sessions). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the directive is strong enough for an agent to know when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.