End an active Priostack session without revoking durable facts. Provide a session ID to disconnect and retain context for future use.
End a session (durable facts are not revoked).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful persistence guarantee ('durable facts are not revoked'), which helps an agent avoid assuming disconnect revokes facts. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as idempotency, whether ephemeral session state is cleared, and what happens on repeated disconnect calls.
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 entire description is one short sentence with a valuable parenthetical, and it front-loads the action. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name, so it is appropriately concise.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a 0%-covered parameter, the description is too thin to fully guide invocation. It does not state what the tool returns or whether it is safe to call without sessionId, and it does not describe errors or lifecycle side effects. The persistence caveat is useful, but completeness for a state-changing tool remains limited.
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 sessionId property has no description, so the description needed to explain the parameter. 'End a session' only vaguely maps to sessionId and does not clarify format, optionality, or what omitted values mean. The property name is self-evident, but the description adds essentially no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'End' with the resource 'a session,' which is clearer than a bare 'disconnect' and adds a relevant caveat about durable facts. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools like noetic.connect or noetic.revoke, so it earns a 4 rather than a 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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool rather than another: no mention of finishing a session, freeing resources, or choosing noetic.revoke/deny for revoking durable facts. The only hint is the parenthetical about durable facts, which is a behavioral caveat, not a usage rule. This is essentially no when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.