Lists pending permission requests across all sessions, optionally scoped to a project directory. Use the returned IDs with opencode_session_permission to respond.
List pending permission requests across all sessions. Respond with opencode_session_permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the scope is disclosed, but nothing is said about ordering, volume, pagination, or what happens if no requests are pending.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource/scope comes first. The second sentence is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous about whether it is a routing instruction or a return-value note.
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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and scope adequately and points at the follow-up tool. The only gap is the absence of detail on result volume or ordering.
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?
There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the directory scope and its default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ("List pending permission requests") plus scope ("across all sessions"), which separates it from per-session tools. It also names the sibling opencode_session_permission as the follow-up, though the relationship between the two is implied rather than explicit.
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?
"Respond with opencode_session_permission" routes the agent to the right next tool once requests are listed, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it never states when to call this versus per-session alternatives, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.