Close the active memory sub-episode and pop back to its parent within your session, preserving the session root.
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.
v0.18.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.15.0Input 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?
The annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds stack-pop semantics and scope ('current open sub-episode', 'parent'), but it does not explain error behavior when no sub-episode is open or what happens to the closed episode's content.
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 that states the core action with no filler. Every word 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?
With an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey the core operation, which it does. It would be stronger if it stated the prerequisite of an open sub-episode or the behavior when none exists.
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%: the single optional episode parameter is fully documented in the schema as the session handle. The main description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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-resource pair: closing the current open sub-episode and returning to its parent. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling memory_episode_start, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as memory_episode_start. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'current open sub-episode.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.