USERDATA

start_session

Opens a working session and returns its session_id so you can log research activity under that ID. Use it to group notes, steps, and findings for a project.

Instructions

Opens a working session; pass its session_id to log.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_title": "<session_title>"
    },
    "name": "start_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	No
`session_title`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the session_id handoff to log, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about persistence, lifetime, whether a session can be reused, whether project_id scoping is required, or whether opening a session has side effects. For an unannotated creation tool this leaves major gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. Its brevity is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (two params) and has an output schema, which lowers the bar for return-value explanation. Still, with zero schema coverage the description should at minimum explain the two parameters and the session lifecycle; it explains neither.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% on two parameters. The description never mentions session_title (required) or project_id (nullable, default null), so it adds no meaning about naming, scoping, or whether omitting project_id means a global session. All parameter understanding must come from titles alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Opens a working session'. The agent knows it creates a session and returns a session_id. It does not differentiate from the sibling start_project, so the agent cannot tell which start-variant to pick from the description alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'pass its session_id to log' implies a workflow (start session, then log against it), which is useful sequencing guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use start_session vs start_project, nor prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.