monitor_processesList running system processes on an fnOS NAS to inspect active services, resource usage, and troubleshoot performance or stalled tasks.
列出系统进程。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether authentication/session profile is required, does not explicitly confirm read-only (implied but unstated), and gives no rate limits or response behavior. It adds almost nothing beyond the title.
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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with four connection parameters, so structure is minimal rather than optimal.
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?
The tool accepts four connection parameters and has no annotations. Although an output schema exists and schema coverage is high, the description does not compensate for the missing behavioral or connection context, leaving the agent with gaps for invocation.
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% with all four connection parameters fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 '列出' (list) and resource '系统进程' (system processes), so the operation is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling monitor_proc_info or monitor_proc_services, nor specify scope (all processes vs. filtered).
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that this is for listing current processes among many monitor_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.