narya_sessionsList live proof sessions with file, load progress, idle time, and change status to help agents inspect and manage active Narya files.
List live sessions (file, how far it is loaded, idle time, whether the file changed since).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the content of each returned record (file, load progress, idle time, changed flag), which implies a safe read-only listing, but it never states whether it is read-only, whether it reflects a snapshot in time, or anything about cost/latency.
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 no filler; the resource comes first and the parenthetical field list is compact. 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?
With an output schema present, the return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document, so the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the total absence of usage context — when a live-session listing is the right call versus sibling tools.
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. The schema is fully self-contained (additionalProperties false, no fields), and there is nothing the description needs to compensate for.
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"), then enumerates the fields it reports (file, load progress, idle time, changed-since flag). The purpose is unambiguous, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like narya_health or narya_audit, which could plausibly also report session-ish state.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many narya_* siblings. The agent must infer usage purely from the word "List".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.