Terminate the active GLPI session to log out cleanly and prevent stale authentication from affecting later API requests.
Ferme proprement la session GLPI active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'Ferme proprement' adds a behavioral nuance beyond the name, indicating a graceful shutdown rather than an abrupt kill. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or idempotency, leaving the agent with limited understanding of consequences.
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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, immediately conveying the action. No wasted words.
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?
Given the simplicity of the operation and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core action but omits contextual details such as when to close the session, whether it affects ongoing operations, or any cleanup behaviors beyond 'cleanly'. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description rightfully does not attempt to explain parameters. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description provides sufficient semantic value.
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 explicitly states the tool closes the active GLPI session, using a specific verb (closes) and resource (session). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle tickets, users, and knowledge base.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool or any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or timing relative to other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.