List active processes to view what is currently running on the system, enabling monitoring and management actions.
List active processes
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": "list_sessions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not disclose what information is returned (e.g., process IDs, names), whether any parameters are needed (though there are none), or whether the operation is safe/read-only. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List active processes'. It is appropriately concise with no filler or redundant wording. It is not overly verbose, though it could arguably be expanded with useful context without becoming bloated.
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 description is minimal and leaves significant gaps. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'active processes' means and what shape the returned list takes. Given the many sibling tools, the ambiguity between 'sessions' (in the name) and 'processes' (in the description) is confusing and could lead an agent to misuse the tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description does not introduce any irrelevant parameter information.
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?
The description 'List active processes' clearly states the action (list) and resource (active processes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_process, kill_process, and interact_with_process, though the name 'list_sessions' introduces minor ambiguity about whether 'sessions' and 'processes' are synonymous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or why an agent would prefer this over read_process_output or get_metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.