List all running processes.
List all running processes.
Returns process information including PID, command name, CPU usage, and memory usage.
This command can be referenced as "DC: ..." or "use Desktop Commander to ..." in your instructions.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields (PID, command name, CPU, memory), which matters because there is no output schema.
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 purpose and return-value sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing sentence about 'DC: ...' / 'use Desktop Commander to ...' is boilerplate that does not help an agent select or call this tool, and the block carries excess indentation and whitespace.
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 no-argument, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: what it lists and what the results contain. Missing only a note on result volume or ordering, which is minor given there is no output schema.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The absence of arguments is consistent with the empty schema and the read-only listing behavior.
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 all running processes') and clarifies scope with 'all', which separates it from read_process_output/interact_with_process on a single process. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, so it falls short of the top mark.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like list_sessions or get_usage_stats. The only hint is the meta-instruction about referring to 'Desktop Commander', which addresses invocation phrasing rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.