Read incremental stdout/stderr and status for a process by ID. Pass returned offsets on later reads to receive only new output.
Read incremental stdout/stderr and status from a process started by process_start. Pass the returned next offsets on later reads to receive only new output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| processId | Yes | ||
| stderrOffset | No | ||
| stdoutOffset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the incremental offset-based behavior, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as error handling, blocking behavior, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then usage detail, with zero wasted words. It is efficient and well-structured.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned (stdout/stderr/status) and how to use offsets. It could say more about return format or error states, but it is reasonably complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the offset parameters (pass returned next offsets to get only new output) and implies processId identifies the process started by process_start, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 (Read) and resources (incremental stdout/stderr and status) tied to a process started by process_start. It distinguishes itself from process_list and process_write by focusing on output retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
Clearly states the context (process started by process_start) and gives an explicit usage pattern for subsequent reads using returned offsets. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives, but the contextual cues are strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.