Terminate a collaboration and optionally receive a summary of the discussion, capturing key agreements, disagreements, and action items.
End a collaboration and optionally get a summary of the discussion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_summary | No | If true, ask an agent to summarize key agreements, disagreements, and action items. | |
| collaboration_id | Yes | The collaboration ID to end. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals that ending a collaboration can optionally produce a summary, but does not disclose whether ending is irreversible, what happens to the collaboration state, or any side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the optional summary feature.
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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits behavioral effects, usage conditions, and any guidance on what the response might contain, leaving an agent to infer important context.
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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description's mention of an optional summary aligns with request_summary but adds no syntax or semantic 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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('End') and resource ('a collaboration'), and mentions the optional summary capability. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_collaborations and get_collaboration_transcript, though it does not explicitly contrast with pause_collaboration.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus pausing, continuing, or other collaboration lifecycle tools. The description implies the basic use case but does not state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.