terminal_listLists active terminal sessions including process ID, current working directory, age, and buffer size.
List live terminal sessions with pid, cwd, age and buffer size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific fields returned (pid, cwd, age, buffer size), which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose any other behavior such as session limits, ordering, or potential latency, which is acceptable for a simple list operation given the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence. It states the action first, then the object, then the specific data returned. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
With an output schema present, the return format is already documented. The tool has no parameters, and the description specifies what information is listed. For a simple read-only listing tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the calibration baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to add parameter info. The baseline of 4 applies, and no additional semantic burden exists.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('live terminal sessions'), and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (pid, cwd, age, buffer size). This clearly differentiates it from other terminal tools like terminal_create or terminal_read, which have different actions.
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 purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to get an overview before interacting with specific sessions, nor does it exclude any sibling tools. The usage is implied by the name and action rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.