Skip to main content
Glama

List Processes

list_processes

List running processes with details like PID, CPU, memory, status, and command line. Filter by user or name and sort to identify resource-heavy or specific processes.

Instructions

List running processes with pid, name, cpu%, mem%, status, cmdline.

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": "list_processes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNomax results
sort_byNocpu | mem | pid | namecpu
usernameNofilter by owning user
name_filterNosubstring match on name or cmdline

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It implies a read-only enumeration, but says nothing about permissions, cost/rate limits, whether results are truncated by the default limit of 200, or process scope (user vs system-wide); the field list it does give duplicates the available output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the returned fields grouped at the end. It is appropriately sized, though the field enumeration is largely redundant given the output schema.

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?

The tool is a simple read with zero required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, so most agent needs are met by structured fields. The missing piece is routing guidance against find_processes_by_name, but overall the definition is sufficient to call correctly.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented in the schema itself (limit, sort_by, username, name_filter). The description adds no extra meaning about filtering, sorting semantics, or default behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List running processes') plus the exact fields returned, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as find_processes_by_name, which overlaps heavily on the same resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus find_processes_by_name, which appears to be the filtered-search alternative. The name_filter parameter even hints at overlap, yet the description never explains the division of labor or any preconditions.

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