Skip to main content
Glama

kill_process

Terminate a running process by its ID using the Frida MCP server. Specify the process ID to stop execution and manage system resources.

Instructions

Kill a process by ID.

Returns:
    Status information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pidYesThe ID of the process to kill.
device_idNoOptional ID of the device where the process is running. Uses smart selection when omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the kill_process tool handler. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator. The function resolves the target device using _resolve_device_or_raise, calls the Frida device's kill method on the specified PID, and returns a success dict or raises a ValueError on failure. The Field annotations define the input schema.
    @mcp.tool()
    def kill_process(
        pid: int = Field(description="The ID of the process to kill."),
        device_id: Optional[str] = Field(
            default=None,
            description="Optional ID of the device where the process is running. Uses smart selection when omitted.",
        ),
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Kill a process by ID.
    
        Returns:
            Status information
        """
        try:
            device = _resolve_device_or_raise(device_id)
            device.kill(pid)
    
            return {"success": True, "pid": pid}
        except Exception as e:
            raise ValueError(f"Failed to kill process {pid}: {str(e)}")
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'kills' a process, implying a destructive operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'Returns: Status information' is vague and doesn't clarify what constitutes success or failure.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a return statement. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words, though the return statement could be more informative to improve utility without sacrificing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and mentions a return, but fails to address safety concerns, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively in this context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'smart selection' for device_id or provide examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('kill') and target ('a process by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'resume_process' or 'spawn_process' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit comparison that would warrant a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'resume_process' and 'spawn_process' available, the description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rmorgans/frida-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server