Marks a session as finished and sets its progress to 100%. Use it to close out long-running operations such as downloads, conversions, or agent jobs once they succeed.
Marque une session comme terminee et met la progression a 100%.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| 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 carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral effect (progress forced to 100%) but says nothing about permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what happens to already-completed sessions, or whether the optional message is persisted.
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 with no filler; the state change is stated immediately. Brevity is appropriate, though it comes at the cost of detail elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter coverage the description should at minimum explain the message argument and the effect on already-closed sessions. It leaves an agent with real gaps before invoking.
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%, so nothing documents session_id or message. The description only obliquely implies a session identifier and never mentions the message parameter or what it is used for, leaving the agent unable to use it meaningfully.
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 names a specific verb ("Marque") and resource ("session") plus the resulting state ("terminee", "progression a 100%"), so the agent knows this is a terminal-state transition. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like tracking_stop or tracking_kill, which also end sessions, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus tracking_stop, tracking_kill, or tracking_update, all of which likely touch session state. No prerequisites or conditions (e.g., only for in-progress sessions) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.