Close an active channel before its expiration to remove it for all participants and prevent any further receipts.
Close a channel before it expires. The thread is gone for everyone holding its address, and no receipt can be taken afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation destructive and not read-only; the description adds meaningful detail that the thread disappears for everyone holding its address and that receipts become impossible afterward. It does not contradict annotations, though it does not explain idempotent repeated-call behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two most important consequences. No filler and each sentence 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?
Given the single required parameter and lack of output schema, the core behavior is well covered, but the missing semantics for label is a real gap: an agent cannot reliably know what value to pass. The description is not fully actionable without additional context.
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 0% and the description never explains the required label parameter—what it refers to, how to obtain it, or its format. The agent is left to infer that label identifies the channel to close.
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 action ('Close') and resource ('a channel'), and immediately clarifies the consequence: the thread is gone for all holders. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aamio_open_channel and aamio_channels by its termination semantics.
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?
Gives a clear temporal condition ('before it expires') and warns that no receipt can be taken afterwards, but it never names alternatives or explicitly says when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than fully routed against siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.