Terminate an entire operating system process tree using its process ID (PID). Use it to stop stuck or runaway processes and their child processes.
Kill an OS process tree by PID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful scope beyond annotations by specifying that it kills the process tree, not just a single process, but does not mention permissions, forcefulness, or error behavior.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and targeting mechanism are stated immediately.
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 simple one-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the destructive nature and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits routing guidance against similar stop/cancel siblings and does not describe behavior when the PID is invalid or already terminated.
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% for the single pid parameter. The description partially compensates by identifying the parameter as a PID, but adds no format, validation, or lookup details beyond that.
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 gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: kill an OS process tree by PID. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like process_stop or pty_stop.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this is for terminating an entire process tree rather than using process_stop, pty_stop, or job_cancel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.