Retrieve the nice priority level of a running process by specifying its PID. Use this to check process scheduling priority and manage system performance.
Get nice priority level of a running process by PID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | Target Process ID (PID). |
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 burden. It states the basic read operation but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., process not found, permission issues) or confirm it is non-destructive. For a simple getter this may be adequate, but it adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does and the required input. There is zero waste, and the critical resource (nice priority level) is placed early.
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 one-parameter read tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the return type (integer nice value) or failure behavior, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity. The description provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in most scenarios.
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?
The input schema already describes the pid parameter with 100% coverage, and the description's mention of 'by PID' adds no new meaning. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 applies; no additional parameter guidance is given.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('nice priority level of a running process'), and the key parameter (PID). It unambiguously distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like process_set_priority or process_kill, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.
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 description implies its use (to retrieve the nice value) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or mention exclusions, such as 'use process_set_priority to change priority' or 'use process_list to find PIDs first.' The usage context is clear from the purpose, but no alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.