Terminate a remote background process group on a specific SSH target by job ID, sending TERM then KILL after 3 seconds; output remains via job_output.
Terminate a remote background job process group (TERM, then KILL after 3 seconds). Output remains available through job_output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | Exact target name from remote_ssh_targets list. Always select the intended host explicitly. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so credit goes to what is added: the two-stage TERM/KILL escalation with a 3-second grace period, and the fact that output survives the kill and stays retrievable via job_output. That last point meaningfully changes calling behavior but is limited to one clause; no mention of what happens if the PID/target is gone or permission failures.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the destructive action is front-loaded ahead of the surviving-output detail. Every clause earns its place.
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 kill tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is terminated, how forcefully, and where the output goes afterward. It stops short of failure modes or idempotency behavior, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
Coverage is exactly 50% (target is documented in-schema, job_id is only a uuid pattern). The phrase 'job process group' hints that the job_id scopes to a process group rather than a single PID, but neither parameter is explained in the description, so it does not compensate for the undocumented half.
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?
States a specific verb (Terminate) and resource (remote background job process group), and the escalation mechanism (TERM then KILL) makes the scope unambiguous. It also names the sibling it complements (job_output), so an agent can distinguish it from read-side tools without opening either schema.
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?
Usage is implied: kill a background job you previously started. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like bash or waiting on job_output, and no preconditions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the trigger conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.