Cancel an in-flight simulation run.
Works on runs in built, queued, or computing status. Cleans up compute resources (terminates EC2 instance, Celery task, or Batch job).
Returns 409 if the run is already in a terminal state (complete, cancelled, or error).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run ID to cancel |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: it cleans up underlying compute resources (EC2, Celery, Batch job) and returns 409 on terminal states. This goes beyond a generic 'cancels the run' and helps an agent anticipate side effects and error conditions.
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 compact—three short paragraphs, each serving a clear purpose: the action, the state constraints and cleanup detail, and the error behavior. No redundant sentences or filler.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential context: the action, what happens under the hood, the valid states, and the key error response. It's sufficient for an agent to select and 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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (run_id, integer, required). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema gives, so it meets the baseline but doesn't improve on it.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Cancel') and a concrete resource ('in-flight simulation run'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_run, start_simulation, and retry_run by indicating the cancellation action, and further specifies applicable run statuses.
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?
The description states the supported statuses ('built, queued, or computing'), providing clear context for when cancellation is valid. It also notes that calling on a terminal state returns 409, implying a 'when not to use' condition, but it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for terminal states, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: project listing vs. details, run polling vs. full details, and separate lifecycle operations (start/cancel/retry). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_projects, get_run, start_simulation) with clear verbs. The compound get_run_status is still predictable.
9 tools is a well-scoped size for a domain focused on managing flood simulation runs. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy.
The run lifecycle is complete: start, poll, retrieve results, cancel, retry. Minor gap is the lack of scenario creation or building tools, but the server appears to operate on pre-existing scenarios.
