Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-bus

agent-bus

by rishabhjava
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_sessions

List coding-agent sessions from Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor, with options to filter by agent or activity status.

Instructions

List coding-agent sessions on this machine across Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor. live: 'attached' (a running process references this session), 'recent' (updated <5 min ago), or 'idle'.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_sessions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoFilter to one agent
limitNoMax results (default 30)
live_onlyNoOnly sessions that look active

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of live statuses (attached, recent, idle) and implies a read-only nature. However, it does not detail return format or potential side effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then explains the live statuses. Every sentence is essential.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description omits what fields sessions contain. It covers the listing scope and live statuses but leaves the return structure unspecified, which is a gap for a tool with no output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for live_only by defining statuses, but for agent and limit it only restates schema info. Minimal added value.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states that the tool lists coding-agent sessions across specific agents (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor) and explains the live statuses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_sessions or read_session.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_sessions or handoff_session. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools