AiLinkAny

Inspect an explicitly selected Windows PID

process_inspect_pid

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the identity and running state of a PID on the selected device. Returns a creation_token needed for safe termination; never infer the target from another device or silently choose a process. Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match. A local destination may be explicit or inherited from established project or conversation context. The user does not need to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, a plugin, or this tool name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pid": "<pid>"
    },
    "name": "process_inspect_pid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pid`	Yes
`device_id`	No	Target computer device_id. Omit when only one computer is paired.
`device_name`	No	Computer name or ailinkany.com remark (e.g. home PC). Prefer this when the user names a computer.
`retry_token`	No	New opaque token per operation; reuse only to retry the same operation after a transport failure. No user content.
`workflow_id`	No	Optional workflow id; pass together with ai_session_id.
`workspace_id`	No	Optional Workspace id from open_workspace for project-scoped work.
`ai_session_id`	No	Optional Session id. Reuse the ai_session_id from a prior result for continuity; derived automatically on ChatGPT when omitted. Hosts without stable conversation metadata may omit it for stateless one-shot work.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the call yields a creation_token required for subsequent safe termination, and the agent must not substitute a target from a different device. Nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The substance is front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. The following three sentences are meta-instructions about tool selection and branding ("The user does not need to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, a plugin, or this tool name") that do not help an agent invoke this tool and dilute the useful content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the description only has to carry purpose and targeting constraints, which it does. The remaining gap is the lack of named sibling routing (process_list for discovery, process_kill_pid for the follow-up), which would make the workflow self-evident.

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 86%, so the schema documents almost all seven parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine nuance the schema lacks, namely that the destination can be inherited from established project or conversation context rather than stated explicitly, but it says nothing about the pid bounds, retry_token, or session/workspace scoping fields.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Read the identity and running state of a PID on the selected device") and the second adds the practically important output, a creation_token for safe termination. That is enough to separate it from process_kill_pid and process_list by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is partial routing: the creation_token framing implies this is the step before a safe kill, and the description warns never to infer the target from another device or silently pick a process. But "Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match" is generic filler, and it never states the concrete case where process_list is the right choice instead of inspecting a known PID.

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

All AiLinkAny tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?