delete_sessionPermanently remove a session and its link to captured requests while leaving the requests in the buffer. Use when you need to clean up sessions without losing traffic.
Permanently delete a session and its association with the captured requests (the requests themselves stay in the buffer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Session id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: deletion is 'permanent' and captured requests persist in the buffer, which is non-obvious scope information an agent needs.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the scoping caveat placed in a tight parenthetical. Every clause 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 single-parameter destructive delete whose annotations cover the safety profile, the key missing piece an agent would want (what happens to associated traffic) is supplied. Only the absence of explicit usage routing keeps it from a 5.
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 100% with a single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id or its format, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (session), and the parenthetical 'the requests themselves stay in the buffer' sharply distinguishes it from clear_traffic at the traffic level. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. The parenthetical clarifies the effect, not the conditions under which an agent should choose this tool over clear_traffic or the other delete_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.