list_processesList running processes on a local or remote RHEL-based Linux host to troubleshoot performance or identify active services via SSH.
List running processes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | System to run on: 'localhost' for the system the MCP server runs on, or a remote host to connect to via SSH |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / host / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / host / defaultRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / host / descriptionPrevious 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"Input schema / properties / host / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "localhost",
+ "web1.example.com"
+]Input schema / properties / host / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "host"
+]v1.6.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it adds none. It doesn't disclose scope (all processes vs. a subset), output volume, whether remote SSH failures are surfaced, or any rate/permission considerations.
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?
A single four-word phrase with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than deliberate economy.
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?
With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return values, so the essentials are technically covered. Still, for a tool that can target remote hosts, the absence of any scoping or behavioral note leaves it only minimally complete.
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 100%, and the single 'host' parameter is fully documented in the schema including the localhost-vs-SSH distinction. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List running processes'), so an agent immediately knows the operation and target. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like get_process_info or list_services, leaving the boundary between 'listing' and 'inspecting' processes unstated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_process_info instead, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., SSH reachability for remote hosts). The agent must infer all routing decisions 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.