List start_process sessions, newest first, including ones from earlier connections: id, status, exit code and whether each is waiting for input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| deviceId | No | Computer name or id from list_devices. Optional with one computer online or a default set. | |
| workSessionId | No | Work session from create_work_session. Pass the same ID on every call in this conversation; omit for legacy unscoped work. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workSessionIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Work session from create_work_session. Pass the same ID on every call in this conversation; omit for legacy unscoped work.",
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are ordered newest-first and include sessions from earlier connections, which tells the agent that history persists across reconnects.
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?
A single tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and the returned fields trailing. Dense but every clause carries information; it could be slightly easier to parse if split, but there is no waste.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (id, status, exit code, waiting-for-input) and the ordering, which is what an agent needs to consume the result. The remaining gap is the unspecified limit behavior (default 100, max 500) and how deviceId/workSessionId narrow the list.
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 67%, with deviceId and workSessionId documented in-schema and limit carrying only default/min/max constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no mention of pagination, limit semantics, or how deviceId/workSessionId filter the list), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List start_process sessions') and immediately defines scope (newest first, including sessions from earlier connections) plus the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_work_sessions or list_devices 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 description implies the tool's role as the listing counterpart to start_process, and the 'including ones from earlier connections' clause hints at a retrieval scope, but it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as list_work_sessions or process_output, nor any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.