List running processes with PID, name, user, CPU%, and memory, and sort by memory, CPU, or PID. Filter by process name and limit results to inspect resource usage.
List processes (pid, name, user, cpu%, memory) sorted by 'memory' or 'cpu' or 'pid'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sort_by | No | memory | |
| name_contains | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered without prose. The description contributes sortable fields and returned columns, but says nothing about default result size, ordering of ties, or whether the list is truncated at a limit — modest added value against the annotation baseline.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical field list is slightly redundant because an output schema exists and already describes the return shape.
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 explaining return values is not required. But for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves 'limit' behavior and 'name_contains' semantics unexplained, which an agent needs to form a correct call.
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%, and the schema declares sort_by as a plain string with only a default of 'memory'. The description usefully enumerates the accepted values 'memory', 'cpu', 'pid', which the schema does not. However, the 'limit' parameter (default 25) and the 'name_contains' filter are not explained at all, so compensation is only partial.
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 ('processes'), and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling list_services or service_status, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_services, service_status, or system_info — all plausible alternatives in this sibling set. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.