Terminate a process by its unique ID to stop unwanted or hung tasks and free system resources.
Kill a process
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "kill_process"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose the destructive nature and consequences of the tool. 'Kill' implies termination, but it does not explain irreversible effects, process state, or session cleanup. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
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, which is concise but oversimplified. It does not waste words, but it also lacks enough content to be genuinely helpful. This is borderline under-specification rather than effective 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param), the description is still incomplete: it doesn't specify what the id represents, how to kill the process, or what side effects occur. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for descriptive coverage, which is not provided.
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?
The single 'id' parameter is completely unexplained. The schema shows a required string, but the description does not clarify how to obtain the id, its format, or confirm it is a process ID. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for this gap.
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 'Kill a process' clearly states the tool's action (kill) and target (process), distinguishing it from siblings like start_process and interact_with_process. It is a specific verb+resource combination with no ambiguity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to process management siblings. The description is purely declarative and provides no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.