container_kill_toolSend a signal to a Podman container to stop or kill it. Provide the container name or ID and optionally choose a signal, defaulting to SIGTERM.
Send a signal to a container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Container name or ID | |
| signal | No | Signal to send (default: SIGTERM) | SIGTERM |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is destructive (terminates the process), the effect of SIGKILL vs catchable signals, permission requirements, or whether the default SIGTERM is graceful — all critical for a kill operation.
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 no filler. It is well-formed and efficient, though its brevity tips into under-specification rather than ideal compression.
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 no explanation, but for a destructive, unannotated 2-parameter mutation tool the description should at minimum note that the container's process is signaled/terminated and how signals relate to siblings. It is too sparse given the operation's risk.
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%, with both parameters documented (name and signal with default). The description adds no signal semantics or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 verb and resource ('Send a signal to a container'), which is a clear action on a container. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like container_stop_tool or container_rm_tool, which an agent could easily confuse with a signal-sending operation.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus container_stop_tool, container_restart_tool, or container_rm_tool. The agent must infer that this is the low-level signal primitive distinct from graceful stop, but nothing in the text says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.