re-ios

frida_kill_app

Kill an iOS process by PID using Frida for dynamic instrumentation.

Instructions

Kill a process by PID.

Args: pid: Process ID device_type: Device type: 'usb', 'local', or 'remote' (default: 'usb') device_id: Specific device ID (optional)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pid": "<pid>"
    },
    "name": "frida_kill_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`pid`	Yes
`device_id`	No
`device_type`	No	usb

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Kill' which implies destructive action, but lacks details on side effects, requirements (e.g., Frida server running), or behavior on invalid PIDs.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose first and then listing arguments. No unnecessary words, every sentence is valuable.

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 action) and absence of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, preconditions, or error cases like invalid PID. Siblings are not referenced for comparison.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: pid as 'Process ID', device_type with possible values and default, device_id as optional. This adds needed context, though it could be more precise (e.g., allowed values).

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Kill a process by PID', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_resume_app or frida_spawn_app.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as frida_resume or frida_spawn. It only implies the context of killing a process, but lacks prerequisites or when-not-to-use advice.

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