Check the status of all OpenCode sessions (running, idle, etc.) to monitor activity or identify stalled work. Optionally target a specific project directory.
Get status for all sessions (running, idle, etc.).
| 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 burden. It implies a read operation and mentions status categories, but says nothing about what is returned, whether the status is live/refreshed, or any cost of calling it.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. It does not pad, but one more sentence of routing context could have earned its place.
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 simple read-only status query this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema the agent has no idea of the response shape beyond the 'running, idle, etc.' hint, and the relationship to sibling status/list tools is unexplained.
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% for the single optional 'directory' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how directory scopes the returned sessions, which is a minor loss of meaning but not required given the schema.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get status for all sessions') and gives example status values (running, idle), so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like opencode_session_list, opencode_session_get, or opencode_sessions_overview, which an agent must choose between.
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 guidance on when to use this versus opencode_session_list (list sessions), opencode_session_get (single session), or opencode_sessions_overview. The agent is left to infer which tool reports statuses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.