List active terminal sessions in VMware Workstation to check their current state, optionally filtered by a specific VM.
List terminal sessions and their state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm | No | Only sessions of this VM |
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 must carry the full burden. It states 'List terminal sessions and their state' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether it's safe, whether it requires authentication, or what 'state' means (e.g., active, idle). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.
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 sentence, concise and directly states the action. It's front-loaded with the verb. However, it is so short that it misses opportunities to provide useful context, but conciseness itself is good. It earns a 4 for brevity.
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?
Given the tool is a list operation with an optional filter, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what 'state' includes, how to interpret the output, or typical use cases. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context to help the agent know what to expect, but it doesn't. It is functionally minimal but incomplete for a tool in a terminal context.
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 schema has one optional parameter 'vm' with a description 'Only sessions of this VM', and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, default behavior, or what happens if null). Given high coverage, a baseline of 3 might be expected, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, and the parameter is not explained in the description at all, so a 2 is more 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 clear verb and resource ('List terminal sessions and their state'), so the purpose is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish it from related terminal tools like term_open, term_close, term_read, etc., and the sibling set includes many session-related tools. It is minimally clear but lacks differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it only lists sessions (not content or control) or that it can be filtered by VM. The distinction from term_read (which probably reads session output) or sys_state is not provided, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.