wsl_list_sessionsLists active shell sessions held by the server, showing each session's working directory, command count, and idle time so agents can monitor and manage WSL activity.
List the sessions this server holds, with their working directory, command count and idle time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's value-add is disclosing what each session entry contains (working directory, command count, idle time), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether idle sessions persist.
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 no filler that front-loads the verb and resource and then enumerates the returned fields. Every clause 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?
For a parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the entity, the scope, and the three returned fields, compensating for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether the list can be empty.
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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter semantics burden on the description.
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 (WSL sessions), and qualifies the scope as 'the sessions this server holds,' which distinguishes it from the sibling wsl_list_hosts. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 implies usage — enumerate sessions held by this server — but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no referral to alternatives such as wsl_list_hosts. Adequate but thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.