Close the active Joist browser session when work is done to stop credits from running.
Close the Joist 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": "joist_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: closing stops credit consumption, which tells the agent this is a cost-control action. It does not say whether in-flight browser state or unsaved work is discarded, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens if no session exists.
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 stating the action followed by the reason to do it. There is no filler, and the cost rationale is the most useful thing an agent could be told here.
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?
A zero-parameter, no-output tool is simple enough that action plus motivation nearly suffices, and the credit rationale covers the 'why'. The remaining gap is the side-effect profile — what session state is lost on close and whether repeated calls are safe.
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, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline for zero-param tools applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the call as taking arguments.
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 the Joist browser session" is a specific verb plus a specific resource, and it is obviously the inverse of the session-opening tool in the sibling set. It stops just short of a 5 because it never names a sibling or clarifies scope (does it close one session or all sessions for this user?).
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 triggering condition for invoking it, which is the main guidance an agent needs for a teardown call. There is no explicit when-not case, such as what to do if a session was never opened, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.