List users logged on to a remote server to identify active sessions for troubleshooting, access auditing, or security reviews.
List users logged on to a remote server.
{"success": bool, "users": list[dict], "count": int}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | Yes | Remote server name to check |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It provides a return shape but says nothing about the remote registry/permission requirements that remote logon enumeration typically needs, nor about failure modes or whether access is read-only. A one-line purpose plus a return format is thin disclosure for a no-annotation tool.
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?
The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the return format is separated into a labeled block, with no wasted words. The Return Format block is somewhat redundant given an output schema already exists.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Purpose and the required input are covered; only remote-access prerequisites are 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter ('server'), already documented as 'Remote server name to check'. The description adds no format, naming, or addressing detail beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List users logged on to a remote server'), which is clearly understandable on its own. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the local `psloggedon` sibling via the 'remote server' scoping, but never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
'remote server' hints at when this tool is appropriate versus the local variant, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Usage is only implied through the parameter context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.