herdr_listList live terminals across local and connected machines with their status, working directory, labels and parent, and filter by labels or include finished sessions.
Live terminals on this machine and every connected machine, with their status, cwd, labels and parent. Includes the user's other work, not just yours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Include finished terminals. | |
| labels | No | Only terminals carrying all of these labels. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose scope (all machines, not just the caller's own work) and the shape of results (status, cwd, labels, parent), but never states that it is read-only, nor mentions result volume, pagination, or what 'connected machine' failures look like.
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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The resource and scope come first, and the clarifying note about scope breadth follows immediately.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is genuinely necessary and present, and the cross-machine scope is spelled out. What is missing is any note on the read-only nature or on result size, which matters for a fleet-wide listing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'all' and 'labels' are already documented in the schema. The description does not reference either parameter, offering no extra detail such as label-matching semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource ('Live terminals') plus explicit scope: this machine and every connected machine, with the fields returned (status, cwd, labels, parent). It does not name a sibling such as herdr_get or herdr_status to differentiate itself, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it is the discovery/enumeration entry point, and 'Includes the user's other work, not just yours' hints at why it is broad. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to herdr_get or herdr_status for narrower lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.