List live shell sessions with metadata such as ID, working directory, injected secret names, PTY status, TTL, and timestamps to monitor active environments.
List live sessions (metadata only: id, cwd, injected names, pty, ttl, timestamps).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'metadata only' — signalling that session output/buffers are NOT returned here, which steers the agent to shell_session_send for content. However, it says nothing about permissions, ordering, or whether sessions from other users 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 front-loaded sentence with the scope stated before the parenthetical detail. Every element earns its place; there is no filler.
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-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields (id, cwd, pty, ttl, timestamps), which is the key missing structured information. Only minor gaps remain (auth/scope, ordering).
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and it adds the useful note that outputs are metadata fields rather than live data.
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 ('live sessions'), and the parenthetical enumerates exactly what is returned (id, cwd, injected names, pty, ttl, timestamps). This cleanly separates it from the mutating siblings shell_session_open/send/close/revoke without needing their 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before send/close/revoke, but the description never states when to call it versus alternatives or any preconditions. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.