Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
losslesscut-mcp

losslesscut-mcp

by bariswha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Close file

close_file

Close the current file in LosslessCut, with confirmation if the app's "ask before closing" setting is enabled.

Instructions

Closes the current file in LosslessCut. If "ask before closing" is enabled in its settings, the user has to confirm in the app.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "close_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so safety framing is already supplied, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the close may be gated by an in-app "ask before closing" setting requiring user confirmation. It still omits what happens to unsaved work, which is the main residual risk for a close operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one conditional behavior that matters. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient — the action and the confirmation gate are both stated. The only meaningful gap is whether unsaved changes are discarded or prompt the user, which an agent may need to warn about.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call rather than suggesting options that do not exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

"Closes the current file in LosslessCut" gives a specific verb and resource, and the word "current" scopes it apart from sibling tools like open_files that operate on files generally. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any named sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase "current file" — call it to dismiss the file currently open. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of what happens to unsaved edits, and no named alternative, so guidance is only inferable.

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