Exit an active impersonation session and restore your full administrator access. Ends user impersonation and returns you to your original admin session.
Exit the current impersonation session and restore the administrator session. Only works if you previously called wetrack_impersonate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the stateful effect: exiting impersonation and restoring the administrator session. It also hints at failure conditions via 'Only works if...', though it does not spell out the exact error behavior when called without an active impersonation.
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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical precondition is stated in the second sentence, making it very efficient for an agent to parse.
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 zero-parameter session-control tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what it restores, and when it is valid to call it. No important context is missing.
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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about arguments.
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 verb 'Exit' and the resource ('current impersonation session'), and further specifies that it restores the administrator session. This makes the tool's purpose obvious and distinguishes it from the sibling wetrack_impersonate.
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 description gives an explicit precondition: 'Only works if you previously called wetrack_impersonate.' This tells the agent when the tool is valid and implicitly that it is the counterpart to wetrack_impersonate, so there is no ambiguity about when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.