service_listList systemd services to check their status. Filter by scope (system or user) and state (running, failed, inactive).
List systemd services. scope: "system" (default) or "user". Optional state filter (e.g. "running", "failed").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | Service scope | system |
| state | No | Filter by state (running, failed, inactive, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination, no ordering, no volume of results or output shape. It essentially restates the schema fields rather than disclosing behavior.
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?
Three terse fragments, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool, though the parameter recap duplicates schema content rather than adding new information.
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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and non-destructive annotations, the essentials are present. It does not mention result ordering or whether the output can be large, which would help an agent, leaving it adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the enum and default for scope. The description repeats scope/default and gives an example state value, adding only marginal meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: "List systemd services." This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like service_start/service_stop/service_restart and from service_status, which is singular. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the plural list action is unambiguous.
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 the verb rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus service_status or get_system_info, nor any exclusions. The scope/state hints give context but not when-to-use routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.