Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ChannelTerm

ChannelTerm

by akira-init1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

Close External GDB Bridge and Session

debug_bridge_close
DestructiveIdempotent

Close an external RSP bridge together with its serial Session. Use it when both the RSP connection and Session should end; it is idempotent and does not kill targets or detach.

Instructions

Close the external RSP bridge AND its serial Session. Does not detach, kill a target, or claim shell restoration. Use debug_bridge_restore after externally ending RSP if the Session should be preserved. Idempotent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "bridge_id": "<bridge_id>"
    },
    "name": "debug_bridge_close"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesSecret management capability, 32..128 characters; distinct from the generated TCP connection token.
bridge_idYesOpaque bridge_id returned by debug_bridge_start; not a Session reference.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by spelling out what is NOT destroyed (no detach, no target kill, no shell restoration claim) — genuinely useful context beyond the annotation booleans. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an unknown or already-closed bridge_id, which is the one remaining disclosure gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler. Scope comes first, non-effects second, the alternative route third, with 'Idempotent.' as a one-word close.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 described. For a two-param teardown tool the description covers scope, non-effects, idempotency, and the sibling alternative — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions are strong (owner distinguished from a generated TCP token; bridge_id explicitly 'not a Session reference'). The description adds no parameter-level detail 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource pair: closing the external RSP bridge AND its serial Session, with the capitalization making the dual scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from debug_bridge_restore, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative and the selecting condition: 'Use debug_bridge_restore after externally ending RSP if the Session should be preserved.' It also states the negative cases (does not detach, kill a target, or claim shell restoration), leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools