ryns-code-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Processes

list_processes

Lists processes launched by this MCP server so you can inspect active long-running tasks and see what is currently running.

Instructions

List processes started by this MCP server.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses one trait: the scope is limited to processes this server started. It says nothing about whether exited/finished processes are included, ordering, whether output is truncated, or the shape of the listing — for a tool with zero annotation coverage that leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the scoping constraint ('started by this MCP server') is placed where it matters. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 trivial zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed but not what comes back or how lifecycle states are treated. It is minimally viable rather than complete, and with no annotations there is no structured field to fall back on.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing because none exist.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('processes'), with a meaningful scope qualifier: processes 'started by this MCP server'. That qualifier implicitly separates it from siblings like start_process, process_output, and kill_process, but it never names or contrasts with them explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before process_output or kill_process, and that it will not show OS-level processes. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the guidance is only adequate.

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