Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-system

mcp-system

by MikeyBeez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

process_list

List running processes with optional name filter and limit, enabling efficient system monitoring and management.

Instructions

List running processes

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": "process_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of processes to return
filterNoFilter processes by name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 burden. It only says 'List running processes' without stating that it is a read-only operation, what information is returned, or any permissions required. Although 'list' suggests non-mutation, the description does not explicitly disclose behavior beyond the verb.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but sufficient for a basic listing operation. However, it does not mention return format or any side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.

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 both 'limit' and 'filter' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List running processes' uses a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like process_kill (which kills processes) and system_info (which provides system-level info). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of typical workflows. While the name and description imply a read-only listing, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over process_kill or system_info.

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