Linux MCP Server

Process details

get_process_info

Read-only

Fetch details for a given process ID (PID) on a local or remote Linux host to troubleshoot performance, resource, or service problems.

Instructions

Get information about a specific process.

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>",
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "get_process_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pid`	Yes	Process ID
`host`	Yes	System to run on: 'localhost' for the system the MCP server runs on, or a remote host to connect to via SSH

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.7.0Oct 3, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / host / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / host / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

changedInput schema / properties / host / description

Previous value: -"Remote host to connect to via SSH"New value: +"System to run on: 'localhost' for the system the MCP server runs on, or a remote host to connect to via SSH"

addedInput schema / properties / host / examples

Added value: +[
+  "localhost",
+  "web1.example.com"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / host / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "pid"
-]New value: +[
+  "pid",
+  "host"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0Sep 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv0.1.0Mar 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't mention SSH connectivity behavior implied by the 'host' param, failure modes for an unknown pid, or permissions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is an acceptable but thin baseline.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but it does not pad or bury the key 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. For a two-param read tool this is minimally sufficient, but the lack of any sibling routing or host/SSH behavior note leaves the definition adequate rather than complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are rich (pid examples, host semantics including localhost vs SSH remote). The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clear verb+resource: "Get information about a specific process." The word 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from list_processes and get_system_information, but it never names or contrasts with a sibling. Clear purpose, no explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_processes (bulk) or get_system_information (host-level). No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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