edgegap_delete_relay_sessionCloses one relay session, disconnecting all connected players. Delete test sessions you created before finishing your task to avoid leaving resources behind.
Close one relay session. Connected players lose their relay connection. Delete every session you created for testing before ending your task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the consequence: 'Connected players lose their relay connection.' It does not mention auth requirements or error behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, action front-loaded, with the impact statement and cleanup guidance following in priority order. No filler.
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 one-parameter destructive delete with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the definition covers the operation, its side effect, and a cleanup workflow. The only real gap is the unexplained session_id, which is minor at this complexity.
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% and the single parameter session_id is undocumented in the schema or description. The definition never says where session_id comes from (e.g., create_relay_session) or what format it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 one relay session.' An agent can distinguish it from the create/get/authorize relay siblings by name. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 description gives a lifecycle directive ('Delete every session you created for testing before ending your task'), which implies when cleanup is appropriate but does not compare against siblings or state prerequisites such as needing the session_id from create_relay_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.