windows-debug-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_processes

Lists running Windows processes with CPU, memory, and I/O usage, including executable paths. Filter by process name or sort by CPU, memory, or handles.

Instructions

Running processes with CPU, memory, I/O and their executable paths.

Args: sort_by: "cpu", "memory" or "handles". top: How many rows to return. name_filter: Substring matched against the process name.

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

Name	Required	Default
`top`	No
`sort_by`	No	cpu
`name_filter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names the output fields (CPU, memory, I/O, paths) but lacks details on data freshness, permission requirements, or potential side effects. For a read-only tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a clear bullet list. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and arguments.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that an output schema exists (not shown, but indicated), the description covers inputs and output fields adequately. It lacks mention of default sort order or maximum top value, but these are minor gaps for a list tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter: sort_by with examples ('cpu', 'memory', 'handles'), top as row count, name_filter as substring match. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the tool lists running processes with specific details (CPU, memory, I/O, executable paths). The verb 'list' and resource 'processes' are explicit, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like list_services.

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 description implies usage when process information is needed but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., get_system_overview for less detail). No when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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