Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agentpeers MCP

agentpeers MCP

Official
by cshenx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_sessions

List local Claude Code and Codex chat sessions for cross-runtime coordination; use native discovery for same-runtime peers and verify reachability before messaging.

Instructions

Discover local chats for Claude Code-to-Codex coordination. For same-runtime peers use native session discovery and messaging first. Stored listings do not prove AgentPeers reachability. Never silently choose an ambiguous name.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_sessions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.2

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that stored listings do not prove reachability and that ambiguous names must not be silently chosen, but it does not state read-only behavior, freshness, or what the listing contains.

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?

The description is four tight sentences, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds useful guidance about same-runtime alternatives, reachability, or ambiguity handling. There is no redundant filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description gives enough context to avoid clear misuse, but it lacks details about what a returned listing looks like and what the agent should do when a name is ambiguous. With no output schema, those gaps matter more.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is complete for that shape. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: discovering local chats for Claude Code-to-Codex coordination. It distinguishes the cross-runtime use case from same-runtime native discovery, but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as list_personal_peers.

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?

It gives a clear exclusion: for same-runtime peers, use native session discovery and messaging first. It also warns that stored listings do not prove AgentPeers reachability, but it does not name specific sibling alternatives or fully define when this tool should be chosen over list_personal_peers.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools