Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Free Codin Agent

Free Codin Agent

by office233
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_processes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List local OS processes, optionally filtered by name substring, to inspect running programs and diagnose resource issues.

Instructions

List OS processes (optionally filtered by name substring).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_processes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the filter's substring behavior and does not disclose return format, ordering, or scope beyond OS processes, making it adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The core purpose and the optional filter behavior are communicated immediately.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap remains around distinguishing it from process_list and describing ordering or scope, but nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single optional parameter. It successfully defines 'filter' as a name substring match, which is meaningful semantic detail not present in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List OS processes'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool process_list, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains that the optional filter is used for a name substring, which implies usage. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as process_list or get_system_info, so guidance beyond parameter usage is absent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools