agent-bridge-mcp

agent_sessions

List active or archived sessions to track and manage coding tasks dispatched to AI agents.

Instructions

List active or archived sessions tracked by Agent Bridge.

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": "agent_sessions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent`	No	Filter by agent type
`topic`	No	Filter by topic
`status`	No	Filter by status
`project`	No	Filter by project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists sessions (a read operation), but fails to mention whether results are paginated, what permissions are needed, any rate limits, or what happens with no filters. For a listing tool with no annotation safety hints, this omission is significant.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of six words. It is efficient and immediately communicates the tool's purpose. However, it is slightly underspecified, trading completeness for brevity. Still, it earns its place without filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the four optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how filters interact, what the response structure looks like, or how to distinguish this tool from siblings. The agent cannot fully judge when or how to invoke the tool based on this description alone.

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 description coverage is 100% because all four parameters have descriptions in the JSON schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, merely echoing the status filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra value is provided.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists sessions tracked by Agent Bridge, with an explicit mention of filtering by status (active/archived). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool agent_status, which might also provide session-level status information. The purpose is clear but lacks unique positioning relative to similar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_status or agent_send. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the vague action description.

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

Deploy Server