Retrieve recent gate sessions to audit which tasks completed full review before commit. Lists most recent first, with an optional limit for focused oversight.
List all gate sessions (most recent first). Useful for auditing which tasks went through full review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum sessions to return (default: 10) |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It states that results are sorted most-recent-first, implying a read-only listing operation. It doesn't go into auth or side effects, but the list verb makes the non-mutating nature clear enough for this simple tool.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, followed by a practical use case. Every sentence 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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameterais, no output schema, and clear sibling context. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what it does and when to use it. A minor gap is that the return shape isn't described, but this is not critical for a list operation.
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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, limit, is already described in the input schema with its default value. The description doesn't add further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 concrete verb and object, 'List all gate sessions', and adds the ordering behavior 'most recent first'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_gate_session and gate_status without ambiguity.
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?
'Useful for auditing which tasks went through full review' provides a clear use case and context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the list-only intent is evident relative to the sibling creation and status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.