Retrieve detailed process information by name for system diagnostics, returning matching process entries and counts to support troubleshooting.
List details for processes matching a name.
{"success": bool, "processes": list[dict], "count": int}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Process name to filter (e.g. explorer |
| 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, yet it only repeats a return shape that the output schema already defines. It says nothing about required privileges, remote vs local scope, performance cost, or what 'details' actually contains for each process.
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?
The core sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. The appended return-format block is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it stays short and clear.
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?
The output schema exists, so the return values need not be re-explained, and one fully-documented parameter keeps the input side simple. Still, with zero annotations the description is thin: it never clarifies local vs remote scope or what fields the per-process 'details' include, which matters for choosing against psinfo or pslist.
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?
Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'name' as a process-name filter. The description's phrase 'matching a name' adds no syntax (exact match? wildcard? case sensitivity?) beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 correct.
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') plus resource ('processes') and a scoping filter ('matching a name'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as pslist or psinfo, leaving the agent to guess which process-listing tool to pick.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (pslist, psinfo, psinfo_remote). The agent gets no signal about when this detail view is preferable to the plain listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.