Raccoon MCP

Read process output

read_process_output

Read-only

Retrieve output from a managed process by PID, including only new lines or paginated absolute and tail sections. Use it to monitor running commands and inspect results without losing track of output position.

Instructions

Read managed process output with new-output, absolute and tail line pagination.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pid": "<pid>"
    },
    "name": "read_process_output"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pid`	Yes
`length`	No
`offset`	No
`deviceId`	No
`deviceName`	No
`timeout_ms`	No
`verbose_timing`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output can be read via new-output, absolute, and tail line pagination, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain how these modes behave, whether reads block, or what the return format looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the pagination phrase is dense and cryptic, slightly reducing clarity for the amount of information it needs to convey.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at pagination but gives an agent little help in actually invoking the tool correctly or interpreting its results.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely alludes to pagination modes and does not explain pid, length, offset, deviceId, deviceName, timeout_ms, or verbose_timing, leaving most parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read managed process output', and adds the pagination dimensions it supports. It clearly identifies the tool's function, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like process_read or interact_with_process.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over process_read or interact_with_process, and no exclusions. The purpose implies a read scenario, but no usage guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server