Inspect active in-memory sessions or a specific session ID to retrieve token counts and memory footprint diagnostics with no plaintext leakage.
Zero-Trust Agentic Guard: Returns diagnostic metrics on active in-memory sessions, token counts, and memory footprint with zero plaintext leakage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | Optional specific session ID to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond them: diagnostics come from in-memory state, and output carries 'zero plaintext leakage,' which tells an agent it is safe to surface the result without exposing secrets.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the 'Zero-Trust Agentic Guard:' branding prefix consumes space without helping tool selection.
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 single-optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers scope, data source, and the enumerated metrics returned. Since there is no output schema, it could say slightly more about return shape, but nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single optional session_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about what omitting it does (presumably summarizing all sessions), so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns diagnostic metrics on active in-memory sessions, token counts, and memory footprint.' An agent can distinguish it from the write-capable sibling guard_session_reset, though the description never names that alternative.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of guard_session_reset or check_status as alternatives. The scope (active in-memory sessions) only implies that this is for inspection rather than cleanup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.