Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Theseus

Theseus

by ywapom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

give_up

Ends a browser-automation run as failed and records the reason when the goal cannot be completed or progress is blocked.

Instructions

End the run as failed, recording why.

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": {
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "give_up"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the resulting state (run marked failed) and that the reason is durably recorded. It does not say whether the run/session is immediately terminated, whether the action is irreversible, or what state the session is left in afterward.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single short sentence that front-loads the outcome and appends the side effect; there is no filler and nothing to trim for a one-parameter terminal tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is covered by the schema. However, for a terminal failure action with no annotations, the description leaves out what happens to the session after the call and how it relates to session_end, which an agent needs before invoking.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate: 'recording why' gives the reason parameter meaning as the recorded failure cause. It adds real value but omits any guidance on expected content, length, or formatting of the reason.

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?

States a specific verb and outcome ('end the run as failed') plus a side effect ('recording why'), which cleanly separates it from normal-termination siblings like session_end or submit. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the 'failed' framing is enough for an agent to distinguish the abort path.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The failure framing implies when to use it (when the task cannot be completed), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over inspect_error, session_end, or retrying, and no stated conditions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools