Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Process Tree

process_tree

Display a process and all its descendants from a given PID to inspect process hierarchies for debugging and security analysis.

Instructions

Show a process and all its descendants.

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": {
      "pid": "<pid>"
    },
    "name": "process_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pidYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only query, what happens when the pid does not exist, whether the tree depth is bounded, or how descendants are ordered — all relevant for a hierarchy walk that could be large.

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 wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it shades into under-specification given the missing behavioral and parameter context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with zero annotation coverage the definition should say more about read-only semantics and failure modes for an invalid pid.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single pid property is documented only as an integer. The description implies pid identifies the process shown, but never says it is the root of the returned tree, that it must be a live process, or what format (OS pid) is expected.

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 uses a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("a process and all its descendants"), which clearly distinguishes it from a single-process lookup like get_process_info. It never names that sibling, but the scope (tree vs. single process) is legible from the wording alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of get_process_info, find_processes_by_name, or wait_for_process as alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool is for exploring parent/child hierarchies rather than inspecting one process.

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