project_closeClose an open project and release its editor. Save first with project_save to avoid discarding unsaved changes.
Close an open project and release its editor. Unsaved changes are discarded; save first with project_save.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | The id of an open project, from project_open. Defaults to the project used most recently. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial specifics: unsaved changes are discarded and the editor is released. That goes beyond a generic 'destructive' label by telling the agent exactly what is lost. It stops short of describing error behavior for a project that isn't open, so not a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the destructive consequence and the save prerequisite front-loaded before the agent commits.
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, no-output-schema tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing annotations cannot: the data-loss consequence. Only the failure mode for a non-open or unknown project is unaddressed, which is minor.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's default behavior ('Defaults to the project used most recently') is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the project parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 an open project') plus the side effect on the editor ('release its editor'), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like project_open and project_save. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Names the alternative explicitly ('save first with project_save') together with the condition that triggers it (unsaved changes will be discarded). The prerequisite is stated as a directive rather than left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.