List Windows services with their status and start type, and filter results by service name or status to quickly audit or troubleshoot system services.
List Windows services with status and start type. Optionally filter by status (Running/Stopped/etc.) or substring of the service name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; 'List' plus the stated return fields safely imply a non-mutating read. It says nothing about permissions required, result volume/pagination, or whether both filters combine as AND.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the optional filtering behavior second.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and this is a simple two-parameter read tool. Only the default-empty-string semantics of the filters are left unexplained.
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 0% (bare titles with empty-string defaults), so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning: 'name' is a substring match, not exact, and 'status' takes values like Running/Stopped — but it omits what empty-string defaults do and whether status is case-sensitive or an enum.
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 Windows services') and adds the returned dimensions (status, start type), which clearly separates it from list_windows_processes. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly.
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 word 'Optionally' signals that both filters are skippable, and the presence of service_action_tool implies this is the read-only discovery step. But no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or explicit routing to a sibling is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.