Terminate the active ELF analysis session and delete its provider-owned temporary project to clean up resources and avoid leftover analysis artifacts.
Close the active ELF session and remove its provider-owned temporary project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis_project_id | No | Optional investigation to retain this tool result in. Does not prove target identity or causal relationships. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to say what is destroyed — and it does: the provider-owned temporary project, not user projects. It leaves gaps on repeat-call behavior (idempotentHint=false is declared but unexplained) and on whether the session becomes unavailable afterward.
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?
One sentence, zero filler, with the action and its side effect front-loaded and the scope qualifier ('active') placed before the destructive consequence.
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 one-optional-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what it closes, what it deletes, and that it is provider-owned. A brief note on what state the caller is left in (or the counterpart open_binary) would close the remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter analysis_project_id is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how this parameter interacts with a close operation — notably whether the tool result is retained in that project after the session is removed.
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?
States a specific verb (close) and resource (the active ELF session), plus the consequence (removal of the provider-owned temporary project). An agent can distinguish it from open_binary and binary_session, though it never names the counterpart tool to reopen a session.
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: the word 'active' signals it applies only to an already-open session, and 'temporary project' hints at cleanup semantics. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention that open_binary is the counterpart, and no note about what happens if no session is active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.