End a local meeting by meeting ID, optionally requesting a summary from the agent before closing.
End a LOCAL meeting and optionally get a summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | The local meeting ID to close. | |
| request_summary | No | If true, ask the agent for a summary before ending. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the core effect—ending a local meeting—and the optional summary behavior. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or what happens to meeting state afterward, leaving some uncertainty.
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 conveys both the primary action and the optional behavior, and every word adds distinguishing or functional value.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus fully documented schema is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The summary behavior is slightly underspecified, but not enough to prevent correct usage.
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%, so both parameters are already documented with clear descriptions. The description's mention of 'optionally get a summary' echoes the request_summary parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a clear action ('End') on a clearly specified resource ('LOCAL meeting') and mentions the optional summary behavior. The capitalized 'LOCAL' distinguishes it from the sibling 'end_meeting' tool without requiring the reader to open schemas.
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 qualifier 'LOCAL' provides clear context that this tool is for local meetings, in contrast to collaboration or non-local meeting tools like 'end_meeting'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.