Terminate a running Linux process by its PID. Send custom signals or use root privileges to stop processes you need to control.
Terminates a specific process by PID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | The PID to kill | |
| signal | No | Signal to send (e.g., SIGTERM, SIGKILL) | |
| privileged | No | Run as root to kill other user's processes | |
| output_format | No | Desired output format (e.g. json, yaml, table, wide). Defaults to text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that a process is terminated, but does not mention that this is irreversible, what signal is sent by default, whether root privileges are required for other users' processes, or potential side effects on child processes.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits crucial operational details such as signal default behavior, permission requirements, and what the response will contain, leaving an agent under-informed for a high-impact call.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only that the PID identifies the target, which slightly reinforces the required parameter but provides no extra meaning for signal, privileged, or output_format.
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 ('Terminates') and resource ('a specific process by PID'), making the tool's action unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from process listing tools like processes/list and processes/top.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any caveats or exclusions mentioned. An agent is not told how this relates to process listing or service management, so it must infer appropriate use from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.