Terminate a named session, ending all programs and removing its scratch directory. Reports peak memory and CPU time.
Stop a session: every program in it ends, unsaved work and all, and its scratch directory goes. With usage, it says their peak memory and CPU time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Its name, from start_session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete blast radius: all programs terminate, unsaved work is destroyed, and the scratch directory is deleted. That is exactly the beyond-annotation detail an agent needs before calling a destructive tool, plus it hints at the returned metrics.
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 tight sentences, no filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded. The trailing clause 'With usage, it says their peak memory and CPU time' is ambiguous in phrasing but still short and informative.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effects and gestures at return values, with annotations handling safety semantics. The vague 'with usage' phrasing is the only real gap.
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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Its name, from start_session'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.
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 ('Stop a session') and immediately spells out the scope and consequence: every program ends, unsaved work is lost, scratch directory removed. An agent can distinguish this from start_session purely from the text.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling start_session as the counterpart operation. The only extra sentence describes a return value rather than a usage condition, so an agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.