Check which coding sessions are currently running and reachable, showing session ID, working directory, elapsed time, and messages sent so far.
List mcode turns executing at this moment — the ones mcode_send can reach — with session id, working directory, elapsed time, and messages already sent in. Only acp-transport runs appear. For past sessions use mcode_sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: this is a live snapshot filter limited to acp-transport runs and reachable by mcode_send, plus which fields are included.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by the key exclusion and routing to sibling. No redundant wording.
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 parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description fully enables correct selection and invocation. It states the relevant filter, the returned fields, and the sibling for past data, with output schema not needed.
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?
Tool has zero parameters and schema covers all of them, so the description has no parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter ambiguity exists.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'mcode turns executing at this moment' and explicitly bounds scope to 'the ones mcode_send can reach' and 'Only acp-transport runs appear'. This distinguishes it from siblings like mcode_sessions without opening schemas.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: current executing turns, and names the alternative 'For past sessions use mcode_sessions'. The 'Only acp-transport runs appear' exclusion clarifies a key selection condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.