Shows all Claude accounts on this Mac with session counts, sign-in status, and app running state, helping you identify which account is active and manage synced sessions across accounts.
Every account index on this machine with its session count, which one is signed in, and whether the app is running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says what data the tool exposes (session count, signed-in account, app running state) but never states whether this is a read-only operation, whether it triggers side effects, if it requires authentication, or if it is a snapshot vs. live state.
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, compact sentence, and every word contributes meaning. It front-loads the subject (accounts) and enumerates the output fields without fluff.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return contents: account list, session count, signed-in account, and app running state. It lacks any mention of output format or ordering, but that is a minor gap for a simple listing 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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and it correctly does not invent any.
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 clearly says what the tool provides: an index of every account on the machine, with session count, signed-in status, and whether the app is running. It does not use an explicit verb like 'lists', but the resource and output contents are unambiguous and distinct from the session-focused 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus find_sessions, sync_sessions, or terminal_only_sessions. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from sibling names and the output fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.