Closes the embedded web page in Lemon iOS to dismiss the WKWebView and return control to the app.
Closes the Lemon iOS embedded WKWebView.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "close_web_page"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects: whether closing destroys the page's session/state, whether it can be reopened with open_web_page, or whether it is a safe idempotent action. A single sentence naming the target object does not disclose enough for a state-changing operation.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for a state-changing tool rather than genuinely tight.
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-schema tool the description is minimally adequate, but with no annotations it leaves the agent without any information about side effects or the resulting state. It names what is closed but not what the agent should expect afterward.
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 nothing for the description to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not misdescribe any inputs.
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 (closes) and resource (the Lemon iOS embedded WKWebView), which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling actions like refresh_web_page, go_back_web_page, and go_forward_web_page. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of 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?
The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related open_web_page sibling that would restore state. The context is inferable from the verb alone but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.