Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
local-network-mcp

local-network-mcp

by ahmed-hashim-pro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_processes

Retrieve active processes with CPU and memory usage to monitor system load. Filter by name or limit results to diagnose performance issues.

Instructions

List running processes with CPU and memory usage

Tool call template

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_processes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of processes to return (default: 50)
filter_nameNoFilter processes by name (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly conveys that this is a read-only listing and what the result covers (CPU and memory), but it does not mention sorting, output format, or whether the snapshot is one-time. The behavior is accurately represented but minimally detailed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action and output scope are immediately visible. Nothing in the description is redundant with the schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only tool, the description is serviceable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves return-shape details such as whether PID/name columns are present and how results are ordered unspecified. The schema covers parameters, but the overall tool context is not fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit and filter_name are fully documented in the structured schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the overall purpose, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action (List) and a concrete resource (running processes), and adds distinguishing output detail (CPU and memory usage). This is enough to tell it apart from siblings such as kill_process, get_system_info, and execute_local_command.

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?

The intended use case is implied: call this when you need to see running processes and their resource usage. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_system_info or execute_local_command, and it names no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools