List legislative sessions currently flagged active, optionally filtered by jurisdiction (two-letter state code or name).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_active_sessions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are limited to sessions "flagged active," which is useful scoping, but it does not characterize the active flag, return shape, or ordering. Moderate added value against a low annotation bar.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the resource, its scope, and the optional filter with zero filler.
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 one-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level, the filter, and the filter format. It stops short of defining what "active" means or naming returned fields, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 0% and the single parameter is an untyped string, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by specifying accepted formats (two-letter state code or name) and that the filter is optional, which the schema does not convey.
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 (List) and resource (legislative sessions) with a clear scope qualifier (currently flagged active). No sibling tool deals with sessions, so it is distinguishable in practice, though it never names an alternative. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
"optionally filtered by jurisdiction" implies the filter's use case but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Adequate implied usage, nothing more.
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.