monitor_proc_infoRetrieve detailed monitoring information for specified process IDs on an fnOS NAS. Provide a list of PIDs to get real-time metrics like CPU, memory, and status.
查询指定进程的详细监控信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| pids | Yes | 进程 PID 列表（至少一个） | |
| port | No | NAS 端口，如 5667（HTTPS）/5666（HTTP）/443 | |
| scheme | No | 传输协议 | |
| profile | No | 独立 session profile 名称，默认使用 default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it is a single sentence. 查询 implies a read, but it does not state permissions/auth needs, whether host/port/scheme connection context is required, or any rate/scope constraints. It discloses essentially nothing beyond the name.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than poorly structured, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents parameters. But for a five-parameter tool with no annotations, the description omits any connection/session context (host/port/scheme/profile) and any relationship to sibling monitoring tools, leaving it 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 100%, so all five parameters (host, pids, port, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or connection semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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+resource: 查询 (query) 'detailed monitoring information' for a 'specified process'. The word 指定 (specified) hints that this targets individual PIDs, which mildly contrasts with the sibling monitor_processes. However, the description never names monitor_processes or monitor_proc_services, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The only implied usage is that a PID must already be known. An agent comparing this against monitor_processes or monitor_proc_services gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.