live_statusSee which teammates are coding live right now across repos and branches, including their current task, recently touched files, and whether their session is active.
Who is working live right now: repo, branch, what they're doing, files they touched recently, and whether this session is live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by enumerating exactly what the payload reports, including the live-vs-stale distinction. It stops short of noting permission/scope limits (whose sessions are visible) or freshness/caching behavior, which matters for a presence tool.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the core framing and then listing the returned fields in the order an agent would evaluate them. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming every reported field, which is sufficient for an agent to judge relevance. The only gap is scope: it never says whose activity is returned (own team, org, or open world).
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter semantics burden to satisfy. The description correctly implies the call takes no arguments by framing it as an ambient status read.
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?
Clearly states the resource and intent: current live presence plus a concrete inventory of what the response contains (repo, branch, activity, recent files, live flag). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like list_sessions, team_activity, or get_session, so an agent must infer which to pick.
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 phrase 'right now' implicitly scopes this to real-time presence checks rather than historical session queries, which weakly separates it from list_sessions and get_session. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no statement of preconditions (e.g., whether a live session must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.