Collects visible processes, connections, and startup metadata into a local snapshot for offline inspection. Read-only; may report partial visibility within 60 seconds.
Collect visible processes, connections and startup metadata, then append a local snapshot. May take up to 60 seconds; reports partial visibility. Does not change system settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real context beyond the annotations: an up-to-60-second latency, the possibility of partial visibility, and an explicit scope limit ('does not change system settings') that reinforces destructiveHint=false while explaining the append behavior behind readOnlyHint=false. It still doesn't say where the snapshot is stored or whether repeated calls accumulate snapshots, which matters given idempotentHint=false.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is collected and what is produced, the second carries the cost and safety caveats. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries most of the burden and covers duration, partial results, and side-effect scope. It leaves a small gap around what the caller gets back (snapshot identifier? summary counts?) and how repeated invocations behave.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to clarify and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.
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 (collect) plus the exact resources gathered (processes, connections, startup metadata) and the persistence action (append a local snapshot), which separates it from read-only siblings like list_startup_items. It does not name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the capture step that precedes analysis tools (list_findings, compare_to_peers), but the description never says when to take a snapshot versus querying the existing lists, nor whether repeated calls are needed. The 60-second cost note is a useful decision signal but not explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.