qnx-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List processes on a QNX target

processes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves QNX target program and thread state as structured JSON, filtered by pid or name, with optional per-thread priority, policy, state, and blocking details.

Instructions

Run pidin with fixed -F format strings and return processes as JSON: pid, ppid, uid, name, path, args, code/data size, thread count and thread states (READY, RECEIVE, REPLY, SEND, MUTEX, ...). include_threads adds per-thread priority, policy, state and what it is blocked on.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "processes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pid`	No	Only this pid
`name`	No	Case-insensitive substring filter on process name or path
`target`	Yes	Target name such as 'tb' (lowercase letters, digits, '-', '_'); must be inside the server allowlist
`include_threads`	No	Include the per-thread list

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance beyond that: it discloses the underlying pidin -F mechanism, the exact shape of the returned records, and what include_threads expands. It does not mention performance cost of thread enumeration or allowlist failure behavior for target, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and return shape, with no filler. The parenthetical state list ('READY, RECEIVE, REPLY, SEND, MUTEX, ...') is slightly noisy but conveys the enum space without a schema enum.

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?

For a read-only four-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it covers the source command, the returned fields, and the thread-expansion option. It could still note that target must come from target_list and be in the server allowlist, but that constraint is already in the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description earns one extra point by explaining what include_threads actually adds (per-thread priority, policy, state, and blocked-on resource) and by framing the result fields that pid and name filter against.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run pidin ... and return processes as JSON') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like target_status or process_stop. It also distinguishes itself from process_stop by being a listing operation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: the agent learns this lists processes on a target and that include_threads widens the result, which suggests 'use when you need introspection'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs process_stop or target_status guidance, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.