session_statusCheck the current session's status, including open captures, decode jobs, and display artifacts. Quickly verify loaded data before processing.
Open capture plus all decode/interpret jobs and artifacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Open' which implies an action, but the title suggests read-only status retrieval. The description doesn't disclose side effects, whether it initiates processes, or authentication requirements. It mentions aggregating capture, decode/interpret jobs, and artifacts but not whether this is a safe query.
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 short sentence, so it's concise, but it lacks structure and clarity. The verb 'Open' is front-loaded and misleading, and the sentence doesn't build logically to convey the tool's purpose as a status query.
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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description should clarify its role among siblings. It doesn't explain that it aggregates status of capture, decode, and interpret processes, nor that it's a query operation. Given the surrounding tools (capture_open, bus_decode, interpret), the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and use this tool.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the status covers (capture, decode/interpret jobs, artifacts), which is helpful even though no parameters exist 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 says 'Open capture plus all decode/interpret jobs and artifacts,' which lists resource categories but uses the ambiguous verb 'Open.' Given the title 'Session Status,' a read operation is implied, but the description could be confused with capture_open, which likely opens a capture. It doesn't clearly state that the tool retrieves session status.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for viewing current session state, nor does it differentiate from capture_open, bus_decode, or interpret. There's no context on prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.