Stop a running background job by sending SIGTERM. Cancels jobs launched within the current session, allowing you to halt tasks that are no longer needed or stuck.
Mata el proceso de un job que sigue corriendo (SIGTERM). Solo funciona si el job fue lanzado por ESTA sesión del server (el handle del proceso es en memoria).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the tool kills a running process via SIGTERM and explains the in-memory session-scoped limitation. It doesn't state what happens for non-running or foreign jobs, but the key destructive behavior and its precondition are explicit.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and signal are front-loaded, and the critical usage limitation is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it kills, how it kills, and when it is valid. It omits error/return behavior, but the scoping constraint is the most important contextual detail and is clearly provided.
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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining job_id semantics. It does not mention the format, origin, or how to obtain the job_id, leaving the agent to infer it from the tool name and context. For a single required parameter this is a modest but real gap.
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 ('Mata el proceso de un job') and even specifies the signal used (SIGTERM). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like job_status, job_log, and job_list.
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?
It gives a clear, explicit constraint on when the tool works: only for jobs launched by the current server session, because the process handle lives in memory. It does not name an alternative tool for other cases, but it does provide a decisive condition for whether this tool is usable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.