Inspect loaded DLLs for a specific process by PID. Use it to diagnose dependencies, identify modules, and troubleshoot application behavior.
List loaded DLLs for a specific process by PID.
{"success": bool, "dlls": list[dict], "count": int}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | Process ID to inspect |
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permission/privilege requirements for enumerating another process's modules, no behavior when the PID is invalid or the process has exited, and no indication that the call is read-only. The Return Format block restates what the output schema already provides rather than adding behavioral context.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence with zero filler. The appended Return Format block is largely redundant given an output schema exists, which is a minor structural inefficiency.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and shape adequately. It omits the operational details an agent may need (privilege requirements, failure behavior for a bad PID) and does not position itself against the very similar listdlls sibling.
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 there is a single pid parameter already documented as 'Process ID to inspect'. The description adds no format, range, or semantics 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 (loaded DLLs), and scope (for a specific process by PID), so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling listdlls at a functional level. It stops short of explicitly naming listdlls as the all-processes alternative, so 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?
The phrase 'for a specific process by PID' implies the usage condition (you must already have a PID), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to listdlls or pslist for other cases. Usage is only inferable from the scope wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.