Lists remote machines this session can message and shows whether each peer is reachable, so you can pick an available coding-agent session to contact.
List the remote machines this session can message and whether each is reachable. Each peer runs its own coding-agent session on that machine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result includes reachability per peer and that each peer runs its own coding-agent session, which helps an agent interpret results, but it says nothing about staleness of reachability, cost, or how peer identifiers relate to subsequent calls.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its output shape front-loaded and the clarifying definition of 'peer' following. Nothing is redundant.
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 parameterless, annotation-free discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (messageable machines plus reachability). It falls just short on connecting the returned peers to send_message and on how reachability should be interpreted.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies there is nothing to scope the listing by, matching the empty, additionalProperties:false schema.
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 ('List the remote machines this session can message') plus the scope qualifier 'this session', and the second sentence clarifies what a peer is. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling send_message by the discovery-vs-send framing.
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?
Usage is only implied: listing the machines 'this session can message' suggests this is the discovery step before send_message, but the description never states when to call it or that it should precede messaging. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.