arch-mcp-server

Process list

proc_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find resource-heavy processes by listing and sorting running tasks by CPU, memory, or PID, with optional filtering by command or user.

Instructions

Processes filtered and sorted by CPU, memory or PID. Use it to find what consumes resources; rss is in bytes.

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": "proc_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Sort field	cpu
`limit`	No	Rows per page
`cursor`	No	Cursor from a previous call
`detail`	No	detailed adds ppid, rss, state and uptime	concise
`filter`	No	Case-insensitive substring of the command or user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 a closed-world scope, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact — that rss is reported in bytes — but says nothing about pagination behavior, paging termination, or result size beyond the schema's defaults.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short clauses with zero filler; the capability statement comes first and the units caveat second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 five optional parameters, cursor-based paging, and no output schema, the definition covers the essential framing (what is listed, how it is ordered, units of the key numeric field). It could note that results are paged and that cursor comes from a prior call, but the schema already carries that.

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 sort, limit, cursor, detail and filter are already documented, and baseline is 3. The description only supplements the detail=detailed payload by clarifying rss units, overlapping the description already present on that enum.

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?

States a specific resource (processes) with the sort axes (CPU, memory, PID), which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like svc_list or fs_usage. It stops short of an explicit verb-plus-scope phrase such as 'list processes on this host'.

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?

Provides an implied use case ('Use it to find what consumes resources') but names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance — e.g. whether to prefer log_query, net_ports, or svc_status for other diagnostics. The agent must infer the boundary from sibling names alone.

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

Deploy Server