minimax_list_sessionsList MiniMax Code sessions by last active time and return each session ID with its position, so you can find and reference recent conversations. Set a limit to control result count.
列出 MiniMax 会话列表，按最后活跃时间倒序，返回会话 ID 及序号。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回条数 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the ordering rule (last-active descending) and the shape of what comes back (session ID plus index) — genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It stops short of saying how the limited result set relates to the full session list.
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 that front-loads the resource, then ordering, then return content. Nothing is redundant, though the density means key cues such as paging are never surfaced.
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 listing tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, sort order and return fields — enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is the absence of any routing hint among 26 sibling tools.
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% and the single optional 'limit' parameter is fully documented with default, min and max, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about truncation or how the 20-item default affects the ordered listing.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('列出 MiniMax 会话列表') plus the ordering and the returned fields (会话 ID 及序号), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as minimax_tail_sessions or minimax_pending, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (minimax_read_session, minimax_tail_sessions, minimax_search, minimax_pending). Only the implicit 'list sessions' phrasing hints at a discovery/enumeration role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.