List logging sessions with metadata, filter by status, and paginate results to audit active or failed terminal logs.
List all logging sessions with metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sessions to return | |
| offset | No | Number of sessions to skip (for pagination) | |
| status | No | Filter sessions by status | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic listing behavior and does not mention that the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, what 'metadata' includes, or any ordering guarantees. For a simple list call this is not severely risky, but the description adds little beyond a tautological summary.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler, and the phrasing is directly actionable for an agent.
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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no note about return structure, ordering, or how 'all' interacts with the status filter and pagination. A short sentence about paginated listing or filtering behavior would make it complete.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('logging sessions'), and the type of output ('with metadata'). It is clear that this tool is about session lists rather than log entries, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_new_logs and search_logs. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_logs_paginated or search_logs. It does not mention whether this is the preferred tool for browsing sessions, paginating through all sessions, or when a status filter should be applied. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.