cancel_jobCancel a job that is not finished. A running job is billed up to the cancel time; its pod is terminated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job id, e.g. MDJOB-20260907-3F200C |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations: it indicates destructive behavior ('pod is terminated') and idempotency is implied by 'not finished' (cancelling twice has no further effect). No contradictions with readOnlyHint or destructiveHint.
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?
The description is two sentences, direct and free of fluff. Every phrase adds value—clarifying the scope, the billing effect, and the termination outcome.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what happens. It could benefit from mentioning possible outcomes (e.g., error on already-finished jobs), but in context with sibling tools like job_status, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The single required parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema with a concrete example, and the description implies it identifies the job to cancel. Coverage is 100%, so no ambiguity remains.
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?
The description explicitly states the tool cancels a job that is not finished, making the primary purpose unambiguous. The additional detail about billing and pod termination clarifies the action's implications.
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 the tool is for unfinished/running jobs, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like start_job or submit_job. The condition 'not finished' serves as a clear usage hint, though not as explicit as naming alternatives.
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.
The information tools (account, job_log, job_results, job_status, list_jobs) are clearly distinct, and the lifecycle tools are mostly distinguishable. The main ambiguity is between create_job, start_job, and submit_job, which all relate to submitting jobs and require the descriptions to understand which workflow applies.
Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_job, cancel_job, submit_job, list_jobs, delete_results). The job_log, job_results, job_status, and account tools break that pattern by using noun-first names instead of get-style verbs, but the naming remains readable and predictable.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a GPU job management server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the job lifecycle without redundancy, and the collection is neither sparse nor bloated.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle: inline and tarball upload paths, job submission/start, status monitoring, logs, results download, cancellation, and result deletion. It also handles billing and account visibility, leaving no obvious dead-end in the intended workflow.