Filesystem MCP

monitor_get_process_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

List running processes with optional name filtering, then sort by CPU or memory usage to identify resource-heavy applications and troubleshoot performance.

Instructions

List running processes with optional substring filter on the process name.

Args: See Parameters block.

Recovery: AccessDenied on some PIDs is normal; total_matching reflects filtered list.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "result": {"processes": [{"pid", "name", "cpu_percent", "memory_percent"}], "total_matching": int}}

Examples

monitor_get_process_info(max_processes=10, sort_by="memory_percent") monitor_get_process_info(filter_pattern="python", max_processes=20)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`sort_by`	No	cpu_percent
`sort_order`	No	desc
`max_processes`	No
`filter_pattern`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful runtime context: AccessDenied on some PIDs is normal and total_matching reflects the filtered list, which an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact recovery and return-format sections. The 'Args: See Parameters block' line is mild filler, and the return-format block partly duplicates the output schema.

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 4-param read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering behavior, and a useful recovery note. The main gap is that sort_order and parameter defaults are not described anywhere readable.

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 0%, so four parameters (sort_by, sort_order, max_processes, filter_pattern) are undocumented in structured fields. The description names filter_pattern and the examples demonstrate max_processes and sort_by, but sort_order and defaults are never explained in prose.

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') and resource ('running processes') plus the filtering scope. It is distinguishable from monitor_* siblings like get_memory_info or get_cpu_info, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 examples imply practical usage (limit results with max_processes, filter with filter_pattern), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as monitor_get_performance_metrics or container_ops.

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