Retrieve running Android processes with PID, parent PID, name, and user, optionally filtering results by name substring to inspect device activity.
List running processes (ps -A): [{pid, ppid, name, user}]. filter = name substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | ||
| serial | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and the filter semantics, which is useful. However, it doesn't state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor any device/connection prerequisite, which is a gap for a tool in a mutation-heavy sibling set.
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 dense sentence plus a clause, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every token earns its place, with the return shape and filter semantics packed in without waste.
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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it does not need to. But given two parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the undocumented `serial` parameter and absent safety/device context leave the definition only minimally viable.
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 `filter` as a name substring, which is helpful, but the `serial` parameter (device targeting) is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds meaning for one of two parameters but leaves the other unexplained.
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), and anchors it to the familiar `ps -A` equivalent. The return shape [{pid, ppid, name, user}] makes the output concrete and distinguishes it from any other list_* sibling.
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?
Explaining that `filter` is a name substring implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions (e.g. no note that this is device-side and requires a connected device). Implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.