Skip to main content
Glama

Send Signal

send_signal

Deliver a named process signal (TERM, KILL, INT, HUP, USR1, STOP, CONT) to a specified PID to stop, resume, interrupt, or terminate processes.

Instructions

Send a signal by name (TERM, KILL, INT, HUP, USR1, STOP, CONT, ...) to a process.

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": {
      "pid": "<pid>",
      "signal_name": "<signal_name>"
    },
    "name": "send_signal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pidYes
signal_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not disclose that KILL/TERM are irreversible, that signaling processes owned by other users typically requires elevated permissions, or what happens when the pid does not exist. The signal list hints at danger but does not explain it.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two compact lines, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the accepted value set. No filler, though the parenthetical list could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a signal-delivery tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits critical operational context: permission requirements, destructive-signal warnings, and error behavior on invalid pids.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates example signal names, which adds real meaning for signal_name, but the pid parameter is entirely unexplained (process ID, where to obtain it) and it is silent on whether 'SIGTERM'/numeric values/case variants are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: send a named signal (TERM, KILL, INT, HUP, USR1, STOP, CONT) to a process. An agent can immediately tell this is process-signal delivery rather than input synthesis like sapper_send or send_key_combo, though the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., sapper_send for keystrokes), no prerequisites, and no warning about which signals are destructive. The agent is left to infer that KILL/STOP terminate or suspend.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools