GPT Commander

read_process_output

Retrieve buffered output from a process by ID to view logs, errors, or results. Optionally limit the number of lines for a focused look.

Instructions

Read buffered process output

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "read_process_output"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`maxLines`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name, adding only the word 'buffered'. It does not disclose behaviors such as whether reading consumes/clears the buffer, whether it blocks, how maxLines affects output, or permission requirements. With no annotations, this leaves the agent without crucial behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short phrase, which is concise in word count but constitutes under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits necessary details while offering no structural benefits (no headings, examples, or clarifications).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide a complete picture of the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavior. It is barely sufficient even for a simple read operation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema defines 'id' and 'maxLines' with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'id' references (process ID, session ID) or how 'maxLines' caps the output. It provides no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses the verb 'Read' with the resource 'buffered process output', clearly indicating a read operation on process output. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like interact_with_process or read_file, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as interact_with_process or read_file. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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