Lists running processes with PID, name, user, CPU and memory usage, sorted by memory, CPU or PID to help identify resource-heavy or specific processes.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the fields returned and the sortable dimensions, but says nothing about permissions, whether the list is a snapshot, error behavior, or whether this enumerates only the caller's processes — meaningful gaps for an uninstrumented tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted text. Density is high but it does so by omitting information rather than by being terse.
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-format explanation is not required. But with 0% schema coverage on three parameters and no annotations, the description should explain the limit/pagination behavior and the name filter, which it does not.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description does add real meaning for `sort_by` by pinning the meaningful values to memory/cpu/pid, which the schema leaves as a bare string. However, `limit` (default 25) and `name_contains` filtering are not mentioned at all, so half the parameters remain undocumented.
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 (pid, name, user, cpu%, memory). It is unambiguous, though it never states scope such as local vs. remote machine or default sort.
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 says nothing about when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. A sibling like `system_info` exists and the boundary between them is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.