Stop a running async GPU job and refund its credits.
Parameters:
job_id: The id returned by the submitting tool, e.g. "covafold-fold_protein:abc123".
Returns: {status: cancelled|already_finished|not_found, message}.
FREE — and the job's own credits are returned automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the operation is FREE, that credits are refunded automatically, and enumerates outcome statuses (cancelled|already_finished|not_found), which signals idempotent-ish behavior. It doesn't address auth requirements (the api_key parameter) or whether in-flight work is irrecoverable.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then broken into compact labeled sections for parameters and returns. Every line is useful, though the Returns section is partially redundant with the existing output schema.
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?
Covers the primary action, its cost/refund behavior, id format, and outcomes, but omits api_key semantics and any prerequisite/permission context, leaving a real gap for an unannotated mutation tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does so for job_id by giving the expected format and origin ('the id returned by the submitting tool, e.g. "covafold-fold_protein:abc123"'), but says nothing about api_key, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.
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+resource+effect: 'Stop a running async GPU job and refund its credits.' No sibling tool performs cancellation, so an agent can identify it immediately.
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?
It implies usage via 'Stop a RUNNING async GPU job' and clarifies the job_id comes from the submitting tool, but never states when to cancel versus inspecting status first (e.g. covasyn_job_detail / covasyn_job_result) or what happens if the job already finished.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.