List active conversation sessions or delete old ones to clean up Gemini MCP Ultimate session storage.
Manage conversation sessions: list active sessions or delete old ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Action to perform: 'list' active sessions or 'delete' a specific session | list |
| session_id | No | Session ID or index to delete (required for 'delete' action) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does flag that deletion is one of the operations, but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether 'old' is a threshold or user-chosen, or what happens to an active session if deleted.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the two operations. No wasted clauses, though it is terse for a dual-mode tool with a destructive branch.
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-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operations but omits what a listing returns and what a deletion does to session data or callers. It is minimally adequate, with the schema filling the parameter gap but nothing covering behavior or returns.
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 100%, so the enum for action and the role of session_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the slight nuance that deletion targets 'old' sessions; otherwise it does not extend parameter meaning beyond structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.
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 verb-plus-resource ('Manage conversation sessions') and enumerates the two concrete operations, list and delete. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like ping, brainstorm, or manage-extensions, though 'manage' itself is a vague umbrella verb.
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?
It implicitly covers the two usage modes by naming 'list active sessions or delete old ones', but gives no guidance on which action to pick when, no exclusions, and no alternatives (no sibling tool overlaps here). Usage is implied rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.