Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umbra

umbra

by lxchx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Kill All

kill_all

Terminate all browsers, tabs, handoffs, and hooks as a last resort when standard close actions fail; prefer close or close_browser for normal closure.

Instructions

Nuke ALL browsers/tabs/handoffs/hooks. Last resort — prefer close/close_browser.

Ex: kill_all() → {"browsers":3,"tabs":7,"handoffs":1}

Tool call template

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": "kill_all"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey the destructive breadth ('Nuke ALL', enumerating the four resource classes) plus the shape of the response. It does not say whether the action is irreversible, whether saved sessions/proxies survive, or what state remains afterward — meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short blocks: the destructive scope/warning first, then a single concrete call-and-result example. Every line earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still shows a sample result. Combined with the destructive-scope statement and the sibling pointer, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the post-condition state and irreversibility are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The inline example of the no-arg call form is a small bonus.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Nuke ALL') plus the exact resource set affected (browsers/tabs/handoffs/hooks), which immediately separates it from the narrower close and close_browser siblings. The scope word 'ALL' is unambiguous about breadth.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the preferred alternatives ('prefer close/close_browser') and frames this as a last resort, so an agent knows the escalation order. It stops short of defining the concrete condition that makes it a last resort (e.g. hung session, mass cleanup), leaving some inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools