Displays active credential proxy sessions with their IDs, ports, upstream hosts, secret names, expiration times, and request counts while hiding all secret values.
List running credential proxies (metadata only: id, port, upstreamHost, secret NAME, expiry, request count). Never includes values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the tool is a read-only enumeration and, critically, that output is metadata-only and 'Never includes values' — a security-relevant guarantee about secret redaction that structured fields do not convey. It stops short of stating pagination or whether stopped-but-registered proxies appear.
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 that front-loads the action and resource, then qualifies the return shape and the security constraint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (id, port, upstreamHost, secret NAME, expiry, request count) and the exclusion of values, which is exactly what an agent needs for a zero-parameter read tool.
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 there is nothing to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('running credential proxies') and even enumerates the returned metadata fields. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling mutation tools shell_proxy_start and shell_proxy_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 listing intent is self-evident from the name and verb, so usage is implied, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus shell_proxy_start/stop or when to prefer it over alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.