Interrupt a running command in a managed terminal session. Send a Ctrl-C or custom signal to halt a stuck or unwanted process and regain control of the session.
Interrupt a running command in a managed KoKo terminal session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal | No | ctrl_c | |
| session_handle | Yes | ||
| total_timeout_seconds | No | ||
| settle_timeout_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool interrupts a running command, but omits key behaviors such as sending a signal (default ctrl_c), timeout handling, or that the session itself remains active. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.
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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While brevity is good, the description omits essential detail that should accompany the tool, making it more under-sized than appropriately concise.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, but the description provides only a high-level statement. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and any guidance on expected outcomes or errors. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters. The agent is left without insight into what 'signal' options exist, what 'session_handle' refers to, or the purpose of the timeout parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('Interrupt') and the target ('a running command in a managed KoKo terminal session'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like jms_run_terminal_command or jms_close_terminal_session.
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 use when a command is running and needs interruption, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sending input or closing the session. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.