Raccoon MCP

Kill system process

kill_process

Destructive

Terminate an OS process by PID to stop unresponsive or unwanted programs. Supply the process identifier to end it immediately.

Instructions

Forcefully terminate an operating-system process by PID.

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": "kill_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pid`	Yes
`deviceId`	No
`deviceName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The word 'Forcefully' adds real value beyond that by signalling an abrupt kill with no graceful termination, but the description says nothing about lost output, cleanup, or whether the PID must belong to a known session.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The killing verb and the PID key both appear immediately.

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?

This is an irreversible destructive operation with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description omits return behavior (exit status?), device targeting semantics, and how it differs from force_terminate/process_kill, so an agent cannot call it reliably without trial and error.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description only implicitly explains 'pid'; deviceId and deviceName are completely undocumented in both the schema and the text, so an agent cannot tell whether they are required for remote/device targeting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('forcefully terminate an operating-system process') plus the addressing key (PID), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools with near-identical names such as force_terminate and process_kill, leaving the agent unable to pick among them from the text alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus force_terminate, process_kill, or stop_search, and no stated preconditions (e.g. process must be running, must belong to the current session). The description only says what it does, never when to choose it.

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

Deploy Server