Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AiLinkAny

by io.github.zhangduochuan
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List running processes

process_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists running processes, process IDs, and memory usage on the target computer. 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

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": "process_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
device_idNoTarget computer device_id. Omit when only one computer is paired.
device_nameNoComputer name or ailinkany.com remark (e.g. home PC). Prefer this when the user names a computer.
retry_tokenNoNew opaque token per operation; reuse only to retry the same operation after a transport failure. No user content.
workflow_idNoOptional workflow id; pass together with ai_session_id.
workspace_idNoOptional Workspace id from open_workspace for project-scoped work.
ai_session_idNoOptional 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that results come from a 'target computer' and include PIDs and memory usage, and says nothing about permissions, whether unpaired devices cause failure, or result scope per host. Small added value on top of rich annotations, hence a 3 rather than higher.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence earns its place and is properly front-loaded, but the remaining three sentences are generic assistant-routing boilerplate repeated across this tool family, not tool-specific information. They pad the definition and dilute the one useful signal.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present and four annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description need not explain return values or side effects, and it correctly states the resource. What is missing is any disambiguation from the dense process_* and session-related siblings, which matters given this catalog's size.

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%, so every one of the six parameters (device_id, device_name, retry_token, workflow_id, workspace_id, ai_session_id) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'target computer', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource plus the returned fields: 'Lists running processes, process IDs, and memory usage on the target computer.' That is enough to distinguish it from process_kill_pid or process_inspect_pid by intent, but it never names any sibling explicitly, including the closely-named process_list_sessions, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 guidance is meta-boilerplate ('Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match') rather than an actual usage condition, and the surrounding sentences about destinations and not needing to mention ailinkany.com are routing/connector framing, not when-to-use rules. There is no statement of when to prefer process_list over process_list_sessions or process_inspect_pid, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All AiLinkAny toolsInspect
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