list_processesView running processes sorted by CPU, memory, or PID to identify resource-heavy applications. Returns the top 60 processes for quick system monitoring.
List running processes (ps aux), sorted by cpu, memory, or pid. Returns top 60.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort_by | No | Sort order | cpu |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the underlying command (ps aux) and, importantly, that results are truncated to the top 60, which the agent needs in order to interpret a short result list correctly.
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, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the sort options and the result cap. Nothing is padded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does with 'Returns top 60'. The main remaining gap is the absence of guidance relative to get_top_processes/get_process for a tool that clearly overlaps with them.
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 the single parameter has an enum plus default, so the schema fully documents it. The description restates the same sort options and adds nothing beyond the schema – baseline 3.
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+resource ('List running processes') and even names the underlying mechanism ('ps aux'), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like get_top_processes or get_process, which is the only thing keeping it out of 5 territory.
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 or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named. The overlapping sibling get_top_processes makes that omission material – an agent has no stated rule for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.