Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ryns-code-mcp

ryns-code-mcp

by rayenking
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Kill Process

kill_process

Terminate a process started by this MCP server by specifying its process ID and optional signal (SIGTERM, SIGKILL, or SIGINT).

Instructions

Terminate a process started by this MCP server.

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": {
      "process_id": "<process_id>"
    },
    "name": "kill_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signalNoSIGTERM
process_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that termination is irreversible, what happens to buffered output, whether it blocks until exit, or what occurs if the process_id is unknown or already dead — all critical for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is tight and well-structured, though the brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than efficient.

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?

For a destructive process-control tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum explain signal choice, irreversibility, and what the caller gets back.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about either parameter. The most consequential distinction — graceful SIGTERM (the default) versus forceful SIGKILL — is left completely undocumented, so an agent must guess at the semantics of the enum it is choosing from.

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 ("Terminate") and resource ("a process") and adds a meaningful scope constraint: only processes started by this MCP server. That scope implicitly separates it from siblings like start_process and list_processes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 terminate versus when to use send_input or process_output, nor on preconditions such as whether the process must still be running. The only usage-relevant content is the scope restriction to server-started processes, which is implied rather than framed as guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools