Close the portal browser session after completing or abandoning an application. Unsaved form entries are lost, so ensure all required data is downloaded or recorded before closing.
Browser schließen. Nicht heruntergeladene Eingaben im Portal gehen verloren.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description then adds concrete meaning: whatever portal inputs have not been downloaded are lost. That tells the agent exactly what is destroyed, which annotations alone do not specify. It still omits whether the loss is recoverable through a session reset, or what happens afterward to a partially completed form.
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?
The description is two short sentences, with the consequence placed first so the loss risk is visible before any call is made. Every sentence earns its place because each one adds a distinct fact: the action, and the data loss. There is 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 zero-parameter, no-output mutation, the definition supplies what annotations cannot: the concrete data-loss consequence. Combined with the schema and annotations, the agent has enough information to invoke the tool safely. A minor gap remains regarding what state the portal is left in afterward and whether a download is still possible.
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 meaning to explain and the baseline score of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing options. The schema also declares 100% coverage of the schema in this otherwise empty object.
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?
The description states a specific action and resource: "Browser schließen" (close the browser). This separates the tool from its siblings at a glance, since the siblings address searching catalogs (kataloge_suchen), filling in forms (portal_ausfuellen), or checking status (portal_status). It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stays at 4 rather than 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?
The warning that inputs not yet downloaded will be lost implies that this tool should be used only after inputs are downloaded, but the tool never states that rule outright. It gives no explicit 'use this tool when…' or 'do not use this tool when…' criteria, and no prerequisites or alternatives. The usage guidance is therefore only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.