Linux MCP Server

List services

list_services

Read-only

Retrieve all systemd services on a local or remote host to check service status and support Linux troubleshooting over SSH.

Instructions

List all systemd services.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON 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"
```
addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "host"
+]
```

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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotation readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation (e.g., whether it requires systemd, whether it filters system vs. user services, or return volume).

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 zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation with annotations covering the safety profile and a complete schema, the description is adequate. Slight gap: no guidance on filtering or relationship to get_service_status.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter host is fully documented in the schema. Description adds no parameter information, but with full coverage the baseline is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (systemd services) with clear scope ('all'). Distinguishable from sibling get_service_status which would return a single service's status.

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 implies usage by naming the resource, but never states when to use this over get_service_status or what preconditions exist. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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