session_listList active, stopped, and managed mitmproxy sessions to monitor and manage traffic interception.
List all active, stopped and managed mitmproxy sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| sessions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool is a read operation by using 'List', and it specifies the session states included, but it leaves the term 'managed' ambiguous and does not clarify ordering, filtering, or potential side effects. More transparency would be helpful.
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 communicates the action, resource, and scope with no fluff or redundancy. Every word 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 listing tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the vague 'managed' category and the lack of guidance on when to use this over closely related session/flow 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 has zero parameters, and the schema describes 100% of the parameter space, so there is a high baseline. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none to explain.
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 a clear verb, 'List', and a specific resource, 'mitmproxy sessions', and further qualifies the scope with 'active, stopped and managed'. This makes the purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that start/stop sessions or list flows.
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 when a session listing is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It does not mention how it relates to sibling tools like session_status or mitmweb_get_flows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.