termix_metrics_send_signal_process_term_kill_hupSend TERM, KILL, HUP, or INT signals to a process for graceful termination or forced kill. Provide the process ID to control its state.
Send a signal to a process (TERM/KILL/HUP/INT)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| pid | No | ||
| signal | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to the target process. With destructiveHint false, the description does not clarify whether sending a signal is considered destructive or safe, leaving the agent without essential context.
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 description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It repeats the title without adding structure or front-loaded key details. A single tautological sentence does not earn credit for conciseness.
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 tool that sends signals to processes—a potentially dangerous operation with three parameters and no output schema—this description is grossly inadequate. It lacks any information about parameter meanings, signal selection, side effects, or usage context. An agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool based on the provided definition.
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 fails to explain any of the three parameters (id, pid, signal). It does not clarify what id vs pid refers to, what signal values are accepted beyond the listed four, or how they interact. The description provides no semantic value beyond the bare parameter names.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool, how to choose between TERM/KILL/HUP/INT, or what distinguishes it from other process-related tools like termix_metrics_list_processes. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.