List open handles for a specific process using its PID to diagnose locks, leaks, or access issues.
List open handles for a specific process by PID.
{"success": bool, "handles": list[dict], "count": int}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | Process ID to enumerate handles for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape, but says nothing about privilege requirements (handle enumeration typically needs elevated rights), read-only semantics, or failure conditions for an invalid/dead PID.
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?
One sentence of purpose followed by a compact return-format block – front-loaded and free of filler. The inline return format is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the definition covers what is needed to call it correctly. The remaining omission – the privilege/behavioral profile, which nothing else supplies – keeps it from being fully 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'pid' parameter, whose schema description already says 'Process ID to enumerate handles for'. The description adds only the phrase 'by PID' and no format/constraint detail 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?
States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('open handles') and scope ('for a specific process by PID'), which separates it from the bare handle64 sibling that presumably enumerates all handles. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied by 'for a specific process by PID' – an agent can infer it should call this when it already has a PID. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. handle64 / pslist) to route the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.