Skip to main content
Glama

Equity Research Pilot

research_cancel_task

Idempotent

Request stop at a stage boundary. Completed reports/checkpoints are retained; no research is deleted.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "research_cancel_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations establish non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: cancellation is deferred to a stage boundary rather than immediate, and completed reports/checkpoints survive. This directly explains why the operation is non-destructive. It still does not say what happens on an already-finished or unknown task.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the retention guarantee is front-loaded right after the action. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, so brevity here costs little.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the stage-boundary semantics are covered. What remains missing for a mutation tool is the outcome for ineligible tasks and any indication of whether the request can be withdrawn once queued.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither project_id nor task_id is mentioned in the description. With two required identifiers carrying no documented meaning, the description leaves the agent with nothing beyond the parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Request stop at a stage boundary" conveys a cancellation-like action, but it never names the resource being stopped (a research task) or uses the term cancel that the tool name implies. An agent must infer from the tool name and the retained-reports clause that this cancels a running research task rather than, say, pausing or aborting a stage.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as research_retry_task or research_task_status, and no preconditions (e.g., task must be running) are stated. The only implied context is that a task exists and is in progress.

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.

Resources