List historical sessions from imported sources. Use filters like project, source ID, or limit to locate specific sessions in the local SQLite index.
List sessions; filters are exact matches, not authorization boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| source_id | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral nuance: filters are exact matches, not authorization boundaries, which clarifies that results are not permission-scoped. This goes beyond the annotation hints.
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?
The description is a single sentence with two clauses, front-loading the action and adding a critical caveat. It contains no filler or repetition.
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 tool has an output schema, so return format is covered elsewhere. It has four optional parameters, and the description provides a key nuance about filters but does not explain limit/cursor pagination or the meaning of project/source_id beyond their names. Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It only states that filters are exact matches, which applies to project and source_id but not to limit and cursor. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but pagination semantics and data types are not clarified.
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 opens with 'List sessions', a clear verb and resource, and adds a clarifying note about filter semantics. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like history_search or history_read, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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: use this to list sessions with exact-match filters. The warning that filters are not authorization boundaries hints at when not to rely on it for security scoping, but no alternatives are named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.