Close one or more NexBrowser environments by ID to end active browser sessions and release resources.
Close one or more NexBrowser environments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Alias of windowId | |
| teamId | No | ||
| windowId | No | One window ID or a list; alias of ids |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.24Input schema / properties / ids / descriptionPrevious value: -"Documented alias of windowId"New value: +"Alias of windowId"v2026.8.20Input schema / properties / idsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "Documented alias of windowId"
+}Input schema / properties / windowId / descriptionAdded value: +"One window ID or a list; alias of ids"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "windowId"
-]v2026.8.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds nothing on top: it doesn't say whether closing is reversible, what happens to open tabs/cookies/sessions, or whether omitting ids closes everything (a real risk with 0 required params). For a destructive tool this is thin.
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 sentence, front-loaded, with no filler — but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy, leaving the agent with nothing actionable beyond the name.
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?
A destructive, zero-required-parameter batch close with no output schema needs at least a statement of default scope and consequences. The description covers neither, so an agent cannot safely predict the effect of calling it with an empty argument.
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 description mentions no parameters at all. The schema documents ids/windowId as aliases of each other (67% coverage), but teamId is undocumented in both places, and the description never clarifies the alias duplication or the default behavior when no ID is supplied.
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 ('Close') and resource ('NexBrowser environments'), and 'one or more' signals batch semantics. It implicitly distinguishes itself from nex_browser_tab_close by scoping to environments, but never names a sibling explicitly to lock that distinction in.
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 use this versus nex_browser_disconnect, nex_browser_tab_close, or nex_browser_group_delete, all of which sound adjacent. No preconditions (must the browser be connected first?) and no mention of what happens if ids are omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.