Check if a process or app is running by name without launching it. Use this first to answer whether an application is open.
Check whether a process or app is currently running by name. Use FIRST when asked if an application/process is open — do NOT launch it just to check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explicitly warning not to launch the process just to perform the check, reinforcing the no-side-effect behavior. It doesn't specify the return format, but 'Check whether' implies a boolean result.
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 sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is packed into a clear directive with an explicit negative instruction.
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 single-parameter read-only check with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what it checks, when to use it, and that it should not launch anything. A one-line clarification of the expected return value would make it fully complete, but the wording already strongly implies a boolean.
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 clarify the 'name' parameter. It only says 'by name', which essentially restates the parameter key without explaining whether it expects an executable name, app display name, exact match, or substring. This leaves meaningful ambiguity for an agent.
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 ('Check whether') with a clear resource ('a process or app is currently running by name'). It also differentiates itself from siblings like open_application and list_processes by positioning itself as the first-choice existence check rather than a launcher or listing tool.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use FIRST when asked if an application/process is open'. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'do NOT launch it just to check', preventing the agent from picking a side-effectful alternative like open_application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.