mk_login_cancelCloses the login browser and cancels any login process still in progress. Use it to stop an unfinished automated sign-in and release the browser session.
关闭登录浏览器并取消进行中的登录流程。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the two effects (the browser closes and the pending flow is cancelled), but it omits error behavior when no login is in progress, idempotency, and whether any server-side session state persists. The tool's name and the verbs 'cancel' and '关闭' do signal that it changes state, but it does not spell out what happens when there is nothing to cancel.
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?
It is a single sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the action: closing the browser comes before cancelling the flow.
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 simple zero-parameter lifecycle tool, the description covers the core action and its two effects. Minor gaps remain: no stated behavior when no login is active and no confirmation of what happens to the session state afterward, though no output schema exists to carry that information.
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 are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it closes the login browser and cancels an in-progress login flow. That is clearly distinct from the sibling tools mk_login_start, mk_login_status and mk_check_login, but the description never names those siblings or explains how it relates to them.
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 phrase 'cancel the in-progress login flow' implies when to use the tool, namely to abort a login. However, it gives no explicit conditions, no preconditions (for example, 'only call while mk_login_status reports pending'), and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.