List processors in a NiFi process group to inspect run status, validity, and throughput, optionally including descendants for broader monitoring.
Processors in a process group with run status, validity, and throughput.
Backed by GET /process-groups/{id}/processors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pg_id | No | root | |
| include_descendants | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned attribute categories and the backing REST endpoint, which is useful for debugging, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or the default non-recursive scoping behavior.
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?
Two very short sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no filler. The REST endpoint line is marginal but plausible for debugging, so it does not seriously hurt the structure.
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 described, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage routing, the definition is only minimally viable for an agent deciding between this and several overlapping listing tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters. It implies process-group scoping (pg_id) but is silent on include_descendants and on the 'root' default, leaving the recursion semantics completely undocumented in either place.
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 (list) and resource (processors) scoped to a process group, and even names the returned attributes (run status, validity, throughput). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling nifi_get_processor, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as nifi_get_process_group_contents, nifi_flow_status, or nifi_flow_tree, which overlap in listing/status territory. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.