inspect_processRetrieve read-only details for a single local process by PID, excluding environment variables and command-line arguments.
Inspect one local process by numeric PID without returning its environment or command-line arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| process | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful negative guarantee, that environment and command-line arguments are NOT returned, plus a local-only scope. It stops short of describing what data is returned or any auth requirement.
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?
A single tight sentence front-loading the action and resource, with the output exclusion clause following. Every phrase earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The negative output guarantee and local-only scope fill the remaining gaps for a single-param read tool; only the PID validity/error behavior is unstated.
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?
With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load and it does: 'by numeric PID' clarifies the identifier type (a number, not a process name). It omits valid range or lookup-failure behavior, but adds the essential semantic.
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 (inspect) and resource (one local process) bounded by a numeric PID, which implicitly separates it from the plural list_processes sibling. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the singular/targeted scope is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for drilling into a single known PID rather than enumerating processes. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative such as list_processes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.