Skip to main content
Glama

Cancel a job

scout_cancel_job
Destructive

Cancel a job that waits for approval, e.g. when the user does not accept its price. Nothing is charged. A matching job that waits for approval also blocks the free sample. Fails with 409 when the job cannot be cancelled anymore, e.g. after its approval.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "scout_cancel_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that no charge occurs, that a matching approval-waiting job blocks the free sample, and that a 409 is returned once cancellation is no longer possible. That is exactly the side-effect and failure-mode context an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, followed by cost, side effect, and error behavior. No sentence is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers precondition, cost, side effects, and the failure mode. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the single 'job_id' parameter is undocumented in the schema and the description does not describe its format or provenance either. However, the risk is low given there is only one required, self-evidently named parameter and the description ties cancellation to a specific job state.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a job') and narrows it to jobs 'that waits for approval', which separates it in practice from scout_approve_job. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives a concrete triggering condition ('when the user does not accept its price') and an implicit when-not via the 409 case ('after its approval'). It does not point at an alternative action for jobs that can no longer be cancelled, but the usage context is clear enough to act on.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.