List all inferior threads and highlight the selected one to maintain awareness during debugging.
List inferior threads and which one is selected.
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": "list_threads"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only listing behavior and mentions the selected thread, but it does not disclose output shape, error/edge-case behavior, or how session_id affects the listing. This is adequate but not richly transparent.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler or repetition. The action and the key output detail are both front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simple listing tool, the core purpose is clear. However, there is no output schema and no mention of session_id semantics or return format, so an agent must infer some behavior. It is functional but leaves minor gaps.
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?
The schema provides only a name and default for session_id, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention session_id at all. The parameter name hints at session scoping, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level explanation.
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 specific action ('List') and resource ('inferior threads'), and adds the distinguishing detail of which thread is selected. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_sessions and session_status without needing to inspect schemas.
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 when to use the tool—whenever thread listing or selected-thread information is needed—but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It is not misleading, but the context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.