Ends the DaySmart browser session when work is complete so credits stop running.
Close the DaySmart browser session when the work is done, so credits stop running.
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": "daysmart_close"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the economic consequence of not closing (credits keep running), which is real behavioral context an agent could not infer. It says nothing about idempotency, error behavior when no session exists, or whether multiple sessions are closed, which are meaningful gaps for a teardown call.
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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the rationale in a trailing clause; nothing is redundant. The purpose clause is the one piece of non-obvious information and it 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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output teardown tool with no annotations, the description covers what it does and why it matters. Completeness falls short only on edge-case behavior such as calling it with no active session, which is a minor but real omission.
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 no parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.
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 verb and resource: "Close the DaySmart browser session." It is plainly the teardown counterpart to the sibling daysmart_open, so an agent can distinguish it without further inspection. It does not explicitly name the sibling it pairs with, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
"when the work is done" gives a clear trigger condition for calling the tool. There are no exclusions or failure-mode guidance (e.g. what to do if no session is open), but for a zero-parameter teardown tool the usage context is adequately clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.