Terminate a running terminal session's process group idempotently by sending TERM, allowing a grace period, issuing KILL, and confirming exit.
Idempotently terminate the session process group: TERM, grace, KILL, confirm exit.
Final output and status remain readable for the configured retention interval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grace_ms | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, so the description's added value is the concrete kill mechanism: escalation from TERM through a grace window to KILL, verification of exit, and the retention window for final output. It does not say what happens to the process group's children or whether an already-exited session is a no-op error, but the operational sequence is well disclosed.
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?
Two terse sentences, each earning its place: the first gives the mechanism, the second gives a post-condition the caller needs. The action is front-loaded with no preamble.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the retention sentence covers the one post-call question an agent will have. The remaining gap is permission/authorization requirements and the exact behavior of the grace_ms parameter, minor for a 2-parameter tool.
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%, so the description carries the burden. 'TERM, grace, KILL' usefully implies grace_ms is the interval between the polite and forced signal, and session_id is self-explanatory by name. However, units, the 0–2000ms clamp, and the 500ms default for grace_ms are left entirely to the schema.
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 — terminate the session process group — plus the exact escalation sequence (TERM, grace, KILL, confirm exit), which no sibling does. It never names terminal_start or terminal_status, but the verb alone makes it unmistakable next to read/write/status/start.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that output and status remain readable after termination hints that terminal_read/terminal_status are still valid post-call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no guidance on what to do instead if the caller only wants to interrupt rather than kill.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.