Ends the current session by quitting a PowerView started here or disconnecting an attached one; set leave_running to keep it open for the user.
End the session. A PowerView started here quits, unless leave_running is true, which hands it to the user. An attached PowerView is only disconnected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| leave_running | No | Keep the PowerView open for the user instead of quitting it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does so well: it discloses that an owned PowerView is quit (a process-terminating side effect) unless leave_running is true, while an attached PowerView is merely disconnected. That distinction is genuinely useful and not inferable from annotations. It stops short of stating whether in-flight operations are cancelled or what happens to a session with no PowerView.
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?
Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional behavior following immediately; every clause conveys distinct information about real consequences.
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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential effect semantics across both session types. Minor gaps remain around return values and behavior when no PowerView or no session is present.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already documents its own default and meaning, so the description only restates the leave_running effect in narrative form ("hands it to the user"). It adds a little framing about who receives control but no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource ("End the session") and immediately qualifies the outcome for two different session states. An agent can distinguish this from session_open or session_status without opening any schema.
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 intent to terminate the session is implied clearly by name and text, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus alternatives (e.g., session_status, or simply leaving a session idle), nor any stated prerequisites such as whether an active session must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.