Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

apify_abort_run

Abort a running actor — stops the billing.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "apify_abort_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
run_idYes
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
gracefullyNolet the actor finish its current item and flush its results (a hard abort may lose what wasn't pushed yet).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the name — 'stops the billing' — signaling the cost consequence of aborting, but it says nothing about permission requirements, irreversibility, or whether the run state becomes terminal.

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 zero filler and the consequence clause placed immediately after the action. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification for a destructive mutation tool.

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?

A destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters, yet the description says nothing about return value, error conditions (unknown/finished run), or the effects on the underlying actor. The billing note is the only context supplied and is not enough.

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 86%, so the schema already documents run_id and the gracefully flag (including the data-loss trade-off). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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+resource pair ('Abort a running actor'), which is unambiguous against sibling creation tools like apify_run or apify_run_sync. It does not explicitly discriminate from apify_run_status, which an agent might reasonably consider when dealing with an in-flight run.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The qualifier 'running' implicitly sets the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named (e.g. check state with apify_run_status first). Usage is only inferable from the one-word scope.

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

All Tulina toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources