Stops remote background jobs over SSH by sending a termination signal such as SIGTERM or SIGKILL to the target job ID.
向远程脱机后台作业进程发送终止信号（如 SIGTERM 或 SIGKILL）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | 待终止的目标作业 ID | |
| signal | No | 发送的终止信号（如 SIGTERM 或 SIGKILL），默认 SIGTERM | SIGTERM |
| connectionId | No | 目标连接标识符，缺省时使用当前默认连接 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the signal types but omits critical traits: whether the operation is destructive/irreversible, what permissions or connection state are required, and what happens if the job is already gone. This is a kill tool, yet the description does not convey its destructive nature.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the core action and the signal examples immediately, which is appropriately sized for a simple kill operation.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is expected to fill behavioral gaps. It does not address destructive nature, prerequisites, or when to choose this over ssh_job_clean. Parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, so the description is adequate but incomplete for safe invocation.
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 jobId, signal, and connectionId thoroughly, including the default SIGTERM. The description repeats the signal example but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb (发送终止信号) and resource (远程脱机后台作业进程), making the tool's action immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ssh_job_clean or ssh_job_status, so it falls short of the top score that requires sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_job_clean or ssh_job_status. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer that this is for terminating rather than cleaning or inspecting jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.