Close the current open sub-episode and return to its parent, finalizing the scoped memory block within your session subtree.
Close the current open sub-episode and pop back to its parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| episode | No | Your session handle — pops only within your own session's subtree; the session root is never closed. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.0Input schema / properties / episodeAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Your session handle — pops only within your own session's subtree; the session root is never closed.",
+ "title": "Episode"
+}v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the stack-pop semantics (closes and returns to parent), but omits what happens when there is no open sub-episode and does not mention that repeated calls are non-idempotent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its effect come first. It is efficient, though it could carry one clause of precondition without bloat.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter. However, for a non-idempotent state-mutating stack operation the description says nothing about error or no-op behavior when there is no open sub-episode.
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% and the single 'episode' parameter is already documented in the schema, including the session-scope constraint and the guarantee that the session root is never closed. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 current open sub-episode') plus the stack effect ('pop back to its parent'), which clearly distinguishes it from memory_episode_start. It does not explicitly name its sibling counterpart, but the operation is 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when a sub-episode is open, and it should use memory_episode_start to open one. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement about what happens if no sub-episode is open, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.