Retrieve all Freebuff agent sessions stored in memory and persisted on disk, giving you a complete overview of available session history without modifying state.
List Freebuff agent sessions known to this server (memory + persisted on disk).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'known to this server (memory + persisted on disk)' usefully discloses the data source and scope. It does not mention ordering, whether all session states are included, or error behavior, but these are minor for a simple list operation.
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. It front-loads the action ('List'), then the resource ('Freebuff agent sessions'), then useful scope detail ('known to this server', 'memory + persisted on disk'). Every phrase earns its place.
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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: an agent knows what the tool does and where the data comes from. However, there is no output schema and no explicit note about what a returned session contains, such as an ID or status field, which would be helpful for chaining with freebuff_status or freebuff_delete.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no input arguments for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing meaningful left undocumented.
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 verb and resource: 'List Freebuff agent sessions'. It also adds scope ('known to this server (memory + persisted on disk)'), making the operation concrete. While it does not name a sibling, the plural resource 'sessions' contrasts clearly with the action-oriented siblings freebuff_run, freebuff_status, freebuff_delete, and freebuff_stop.
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 intended use is implied by 'List Freebuff agent sessions', but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings. It does not say, for example, to use freebuff_status for a detailed look at one session or freebuff_delete to remove one. With four related lifecycle tools present, some routing guidance would improve the definition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.