Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Find Processes By Name

find_processes_by_name

Locate running processes by name using substring matching on process names or command lines, or require an exact match for precise identification.

Instructions

Find processes by name (substring on name/cmdline, or exact match).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "find_processes_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
exactNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that matching defaults to substring across both name and cmdline, which is non-obvious behavior, but it says nothing about read-only safety, case sensitivity, result ordering, or scope of processes searched.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the matching modes in a compact parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter read operation with an output schema already documenting returns, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gaps are minor behavioral details (case sensitivity, matching scope) rather than anything that would cause a wrong invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it largely does: it establishes that 'name' is matched as a substring against name and cmdline, and that 'exact' switches to exact matching. Only edge details such as case sensitivity remain unstated.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (find processes) and immediately clarifies the matching semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from kill_processes_by_name by the verb alone, but it does not explicitly position itself against list_processes or find_windows_by_process.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical tells you the tool matches on name/cmdline, which suggests when it is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_processes for enumerating everything.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools