close_instrumentClose a single connected SCPI instrument by resource, or omit it to disconnect every open instrument. Frees VISA sessions safely after measurements.
Close one open instrument, or all of them if resource is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | No | Resource to close. Omit to close every open instrument. |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It repeats the schema's omission behavior but discloses nothing about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error conditions for this mutation operation.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately explaining the omitted-resource case. No unnecessary text.
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 one-parameter close tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description tells the agent enough to invoke it correctly. It is less complete on the safety/behavioral side because no annotations exist, but the return values are covered by the output schema.
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 `resource` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the same omission semantics, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field.
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 states a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('open instrument') and defines the default scope when no resource is supplied. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like open_instrument or list_instruments.
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?
It explains the conditional behavior: close one instrument, or all open instruments if resource is omitted. However, it does not name alternatives such as forget_instrument or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.