Lists process ownership records for the current Windows user without connecting to their browsers, showing active, orphaned driver, finished, unknown, or invalid sessions for diagnosis without takeover or cleanup.
List process ownership records from this Windows user, without contacting their browsers. Active, orphaned_driver, finished, unknown or invalid. No takeover or automatic cleanup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that it does not contact browsers, perform takeover, or run automatic cleanup, which are meaningful behavioral traits for a listing tool, though it omits permission requirements and return-data characteristics.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded: it states the action, scope, and key behavioral constraints before listing status values. The final status fragment is slightly compact but still efficient.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description gives enough to understand the broad purpose and status categories. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, it could better explain what a "process ownership record" contains or what the listing actually returns.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 and resource: "List process ownership records from this Windows user." It adds scope and status categories, though it does not explicitly position itself against siblings like browser_status or browser_cleanup_session.
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 phrases "without contacting their browsers" and "No takeover or automatic cleanup" imply this is for inspection rather than cleanup or takeover. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of browser_status or browser_cleanup_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.