mem-forensics-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_get_process_tree

Analyze memory dumps to retrieve process trees with parent-child relationships and flag suspicious processes for forensic investigation.

Instructions

Get process tree showing parent-child relationships. Highlights suspicious processes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "image_path": "<image_path>"
    },
    "name": "memory_get_process_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`root_pid`	No	Show tree from this PID
`image_path`	Yes	Path to memory dump file
`highlight_suspicious`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.2Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an extra behavior of highlighting suspicious processes, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain the criteria for suspicion, the output structure, or the effect of the root_pid parameter. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff, repetition, or unnecessary technical jargon.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the returned tree structure or format. It also fails to position the tool within the broader memory analysis workflow, which is relevant given the many sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds little beyond the schema. It hints at the highlight_suspicious parameter but doesn't explain root_pid or image_path. With only 67% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('process tree'), elaborating on parent-child relationships. It also mentions the highlighting of suspicious processes, which distinguishes it from simple listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to memory_hunt_process_anomalies, which may also deal with suspicious processes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or use cases. The agent must infer that it's for viewing process hierarchy from a memory dump, but no explicit conditional usage is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server