Claude Orchestrator MCP

Register Session

register_session

Register a Claude Code session with the orchestrator when starting a project to enable cross-project coordination across repositories and roles.

Instructions

Register this Claude Code session with the orchestrator. Call this when starting work on a project to enable cross-project coordination.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repoPath": "<repoPath>"
    },
    "name": "register_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Role of this project (e.g., "auth", "api", "frontend")
`repoPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the repository
`projectGroup`	No	Name of the project group this repo belongs to

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No
`status`	Yes
`sessionId`	Yes
`projectGroup`	No
`relatedSessions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect (enables cross-project coordination) but is silent on lifecycle semantics: whether repeat calls are idempotent, whether it updates or duplicates an existing registration, and whether registration persists across restarts. Return values are covered by the output schema, so that gap is excused.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core action stated first and the trigger condition second. Nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple registration tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it. The remaining gap is lifecycle behavior around unregister_session and repeated calls, which is minor but real.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about repoPath, role, or projectGroup beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Register this Claude Code session with the orchestrator.' An agent can distinguish it from query/list siblings, though the description doesn't explicitly differentiate it from unregister_session or heartbeat.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context — 'Call this when starting work on a project' — which is a genuine timing guideline. It doesn't mention when NOT to call it or how it pairs with unregister_session, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server