Stop an active terminal session by process ID, first sending SIGINT and then escalating to SIGKILL if the process does not end.
Terminate an active terminal session by PID, escalating from SIGINT to SIGKILL if necessary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| process_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the escalation behavior (SIGINT to SIGKILL) and the constraint that it targets an 'active' session, providing extra context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One sentence that front-loads the action and escalation behavior. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple kill operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. It does not mention return values, failure handling, or prerequisites like needing to list sessions first, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations covering safety, it is reasonably complete. However, it could note that the session must be active and that the PID comes from a session list.
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 schema has a single parameter process_id with type integer and bounds. The description only says 'by PID' which reiterates the property name without adding new meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the lack of documentation in the schema, but the property name is self-explanatory.
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 clearly states the tool terminates a terminal session by PID, using the verb 'terminate' and resource 'active terminal session'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lb_run_shell or lb_shell_output by its destructive action.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for ending a session, but does not reference sibling tools like lb_shell_sessions or lb_shell_input, nor does it provide exclusions. The context of being a kill operation is clear, but no guidance on prerequisites or alternative scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.