Terminate a running application by process name or PID, with an optional signal (TERM, KILL, INT) to control how it stops.
Kill a running application by name or PID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | No | Process ID to kill (takes precedence over name) | |
| name | No | Process name to kill | |
| signal | No | Signal to send (default TERM) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is carried by structured data, and the description is at least consistent with them ("Kill"). It adds no extra context such as whether unsaved work is lost, whether child processes are terminated, or what happens when no process matches, so it contributes little beyond the annotations.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words.
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 destructive action with full annotation and schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. It is missing practical context such as behavior on no-match, whether it is forceful or graceful by default, and how it differs from the window-level kill siblings.
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 100%, including the precedence rule for pid and the default TERM signal, so the heavy lifting is done by the schema. The description only restates the two selector types without adding format or precedence detail, which is the expected baseline case.
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 ("Kill a running application") plus the two selector modes. It is understandable without the schema. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling kill_window/close_window, so an agent could hesitate between killing the app process and closing the window.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The siblings kill_window and close_window overlap conceptually, and the description does nothing to route the agent between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.