Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tmux-mcp

tmux-mcp

by vn-lazyming
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Close terminal

tmux_kill
DestructiveIdempotent

Close a session, window, or pane opened by tmux_new, terminating its running process and refusing others to protect existing panes.

Instructions

Close a session, window or pane that tmux_new opened, killing whatever runs in it. Refuses anything else, so the human's own panes are never closed.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "tmux_kill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name given to tmux_new, or the pane id it returned, e.g. "%7".

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds what the annotations cannot: that killing terminates whatever process runs inside, and that the tool hard-refuses targets it did not create. It does not mention permissions, error format, or the refusal response shape.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded and the safety guarantee immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. Combined with the description, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only refusal/error behavior is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the name parameter is documented with the '%7' pane-id example. The description adds only the reminder that the name came from tmux_new, which is marginal beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (close) and resource (session, window, pane), and explicitly ties the target to 'that tmux_new opened', which distinguishes it from siblings like tmux_send and tmux_read that operate on live panes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Refuses anything else, so the human's own panes are never closed' gives a clear usage condition and a scope exclusion. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases where closing is inappropriate, but the targeting rule is unambiguous.

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