Close a file previously opened by a remote system, using its file ID to release the handle when access is no longer required.
Close a file opened by a remote system.
{"success": bool, "message": str}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | File ID to close |
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It states the operation but omits the safety profile: whether closing a handle is destructive or reversible, what permissions the remote session requires, and what happens if the file is in use. Only the return shape is disclosed.
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?
The action is front-loaded in a single short sentence with no padding. The appended Return Format block is somewhat redundant given an output schema already exists, but it does not impede clarity.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values (and duplicating it adds little). For a mutation-style tool with no annotations, however, the agent is not told about required permissions, side effects, or failure modes, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.
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 required parameter (file_id) is documented in the schema as 'File ID to close'. The description adds no format, range, or provenance detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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: 'Close a file opened by a remote system', which clearly separates it from the sibling psfile (which enumerates open files). The phrasing 'opened by a remote system' is slightly ambiguous about scope, but the action and target are unambiguous.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus psfile, nor that a file_id must first be obtained from that listing tool, nor any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer the entire workflow from the parameter name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.