Skip to main content
Glama
eva-wanxin-git

Windows Automation MCP Server

kill_process

Terminate Windows processes by name to free system resources or stop unresponsive applications. Optionally force close stubborn processes.

Instructions

结束进程

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes进程名称(如 notepad.exe)
forceNo是否强制结束(可选)

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the process killing logic using taskkill.
    async killProcess(processName, force = false) {
      try {
        const flag = force ? '/F' : '';
        await execAsync(`taskkill ${flag} /IM "${processName}"`);
        return { success: true, process: processName, message: '进程已结束' };
      } catch (error) {
        return { success: false, error: error.message };
      }
    }
  • Tool definition with input schema for kill_process.
    {
      name: 'kill_process',
      description: '结束进程',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          name: { type: 'string', description: '进程名称(如 notepad.exe)' },
          force: { type: 'boolean', description: '是否强制结束(可选)' },
        },
        required: ['name'],
      },
    },
  • Dispatch in executeTool method routing kill_process to handler.
    case 'kill_process':
      return await this.killProcess(args.name, args.force);
  • kill_process listed in supported tools for canHandle method.
    const tools = ['launch_application', 'kill_process', 'list_processes', 'get_process_info'];
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '结束进程' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't state whether it requires elevated permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., process not found), or if it affects system stability. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient phrase ('结束进程') that front-loads the core action with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, though brevity limits informational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like permissions, error handling, or return values, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 both parameters ('name' as process name and 'force' as optional boolean). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid names or effects of 'force'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '结束进程' (end process) clearly states the verb ('end') and resource ('process'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_process_info' (read-only) and 'list_processes' (list). However, it doesn't specify whether it terminates by name or PID, which could be more precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin rights), when to prefer 'force' mode, or how it differs from system-specific commands. The description alone offers no usage context beyond the basic action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eva-wanxin-git/windows-automation-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server