List running processes, filter by process name, and sort results by CPU or memory usage to identify resource-heavy applications.
List running processes, optionally filtered and sorted by CPU or memory usage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort by cpu or mem (default cpu) | |
| limit | No | Max number of processes (default 20) | |
| filter | No | Filter by process name substring (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering/sorting are optional, but says nothing about return shape, ordering guarantees, or pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core verb and the optional modifiers appear in the right order.
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 list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only genuine gap is that with no output schema, the description never indicates what a process entry contains.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sort, limit, and filter in detail. The description only echoes that results can be filtered and sorted by CPU or memory usage, adding no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('running processes') plus the capabilities (filter, sort by CPU/memory), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the very similar sibling list_running_apps, leaving an agent to guess which to pick.
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?
The description implies usage (inspect running processes, optionally filtered/sorted) but never says when to use this versus list_running_apps or the get_cpu_info/get_memory_info siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.