Close one or multiple NexBrowser environments by window ID to end sessions and free resources.
Close one or more NexBrowser environments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Documented alias of windowId | |
| teamId | No | ||
| windowId | No | One window ID or a list; alias of ids |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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?
The `destructiveHint: true` annotation is the only behavioral signal. The description adds no further context about what happens when an environment is closed—whether sessions are terminated, proxies unbound, or state lost. It merely restates the operation without revealing consequences beyond the annotation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose efficiently, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and contextual details.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the definition is under-specified. An agent is left without knowledge of return values, error behavior, or the precise effects of closing an environment. The unresolved `teamId` parameter and lack of alternative guidance further reduce completeness.
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 adds no parameter-level information. The schema partially documents `ids` and `windowId` as aliases, but `teamId` remains undefined in both schema and description. The relationship between the three parameters is ambiguous, and the description doesn't clarify which should be used or how they interact.
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 clearly states the action ('Close') and the resource ('one or more NexBrowser environments'). It is specific enough to convey that this tool shuts down entire browser environments rather than individual tabs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling `nex_browser_tab_close`.
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 tool versus alternatives like `nex_browser_tab_close` or `nex_browser_disconnect`. The description gives no context about scenarios where closing an environment is appropriate, nor does it mention prerequisites or side conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.