Close every active remote session at once to clear connections and free resources. Use it to terminate all open SSH and WinRM sessions when ending an administrative task or resetting state.
Close every active session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether other users' sessions are affected, whether in-flight jobs are aborted, or whether confirmation is required for this irreversible bulk action.
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, appropriate for a no-argument tool. It is efficient but so terse that a caution clause could have been added without bloat.
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 described, and there are no parameters to document. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent bulk operation, the description omits blast-radius detail such as multi-user impact and job interruption, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible call.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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?
"Close every active session" names a specific verb and resource, and the word "every" signals bulk scope versus the singular remote_session_close sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
The all-or-nothing scope is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no pointer to remote_session_close for single-session shutdown, and no mention of remote_session_cleanup_idle as a less aggressive alternative. The agent must infer the choice from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.