Find terminal groups where an employee has an open session. Provide employee ID to list active terminal groups for monitoring or management.
Терминальные группы с открытой сессией сотрудника. Где взять ID: employeeId → employees__get_employee_info. Троттлинг MCP-сервера (не лимит iikoCloud): не чаще 10 запрос(ов) за 60 с — кэшируйте результат в диалоге.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable operational behavior: a rate limit (10 requests per 60s) on the MCP server and a caching recommendation. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent avoid throttling.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a usage hint and a rate-limit note. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers purpose, ID source, and rate limiting, which is solid for a simple read-only tool. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not describe the response shape (though no output schema exists). Given the many similar tools in the sibling list, more guidance on when to use this one would improve completeness.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description mentions where to get employeeId but does not explain its meaning or any constraints beyond the schema's UUID format. It provides a pointer rather than semantic depth, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.
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 states the tool returns terminal groups where the employee has an open session. It is specific about the resource and condition, and the tool name already indicates 'get'. It distinguishes from generic terminal group tools by the 'open session' qualifier, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action sentence.
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 description gives a prerequisite (where to obtain employeeId) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. No sibling differentiation is provided, so an agent may not know to choose this over terminal_groups__get_terminal_groups or similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.