purplemux-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pmux_close_tab

Close a tab in the specified workspace and tab ID. Returns a boolean indicating success, skipping tmux kill for browser tabs.

Instructions

Close a tab. Returns the real { ok:boolean } body (surfaced faithfully; the CLI would hide it). For web-browser tabs the tmux kill is skipped.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>",
      "tabId": "<tabId>"
    },
    "name": "pmux_close_tab"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tabId`	Yes	Target tab id (from pmux_list_tabs / pmux_create_tab).
`workspaceId`	Yes	Target workspace id (from pmux_list_workspaces).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the return value is the real {ok:boolean} body and that for web-browser tabs the tmux kill is skipped. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, error cases, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences and no extraneous information. It is efficiently structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the return type and a conditional behavior, but lacks broader context about outcomes, state changes, or usage flows. It is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Close a tab' which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pmux_get_tab or pmux_create_tab, which reduces clarity slightly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or contextual triggers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.