Lists system services across Linux, Windows, and macOS, with optional filters by state or name substring, so you can inspect running, stopped, active, or failed services.
List services (systemd on Linux, Get-Service on Windows, launchctl on macOS). state: e.g. running / stopped (Windows) or running / failed / active (systemd).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the underlying platform mechanisms and platform-specific state values, but it does not mention permissions, scope (all services vs. user services), or other behavioral caveats.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds relevant platform-specific state guidance without any wasted text.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description leaves `name_contains` undocumented and lacks any guidance about scope or permissions. For a simple two-parameter listing tool it is mostly complete but has a clear gap.
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 must compensate. It partially explains the `state` parameter with platform-specific examples, but completely omits the `name_contains` parameter, leaving one of two parameters 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List services', and immediately clarifies the platform-specific backends (systemd, Get-Service, launchctl). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools such as service_status or list_processes.
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 listing intent is clear, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus service_status or other service-related tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.