Terminate a running process by its PID using graceful SIGTERM or forceful SIGKILL when needed. Resolve unresponsive or unwanted processes quickly.
[DISABLED - set LNMCP_ENABLE_KILL=1 to enable] Terminate or kill a process by PID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | Process ID to kill | |
| force | No | Force kill (SIGKILL) instead of graceful termination (SIGTERM) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only notes that the tool is disabled by default and that it terminates/kills, omitting the destructive and irreversible nature, permission requirements, and potential side effects on child processes.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the critical disabled state before the action. There is no filler or redundant wording.
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 destructive process-control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits consequences, error cases, prerequisites, and postconditions, making it insufficient for an agent to call safely.
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 100%, so the schema already documents pid and force (including SIGTERM vs SIGKILL). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'by PID', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action (Terminate or kill) applied to a resource (process by PID), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like list_processes or execute_local_command. However it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites described. The disabled warning hints at activation requirements but does not help an agent decide when to invoke the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.