Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opsgate

opsgate

by polymatx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go

process_top

List the top CPU- or memory-consuming processes on a host, with optional host selection and result limit, to quickly identify resource-heavy workloads.

Instructions

List the top processes on a host by CPU or memory usage.

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": "process_top"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byNosort processes by cpu or mem (default cpu)
hostNotarget host name from the opsgate config; omit for the default host
limitNohow many processes to return (default 15, max 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, required permissions, rate limits, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core purpose efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits usage context relative to sibling process-listing tools and lacks any behavioral disclosure, but the schema supplies all parameter details.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including defaults and max. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('top processes'), scope ('on a host'), and sort criterion ('by CPU or memory usage'). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from container-oriented siblings like docker_ps or compose_ps, which also list processes.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is for host-level process inspection rather than container process inspection.

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