seneschal_zecmon_scan_cancelStop a running scan and release the scanner slot. Do this as soon as you stop caring about a scan — concurrency is finite and an abandoned chain walk blocks someone else. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| jobToken | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the tool releases a scanner slot and that concurrency is finite, which is important behavioral context. It omits details like idempotency or error handling, but the core trait is disclosed.
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 and front-loaded with the action. The final sentence 'Free.' is ambiguous and adds little value, but overall the structure is efficient.
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?
The purpose is clear, but the lack of parameter documentation and output schema leaves the invocation under-specified. The agent doesn't know what values to pass or what to expect in response, making it incomplete for safe autonomous use.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero explanation of jobId or jobToken. The agent can only infer from names, with no guidance on how to obtain them or their format. This is a critical gap for a cancel operation.
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 clearly states the action ('Stop a running scan') and the resource ('a scan job'). It differentiates from sibling scan tools like zecmon_scan and zecmon_scan_status by focusing on cancellation and slot release.
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 provides an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Do this as soon as you stop caring about a scan' and explains the negative consequence of not acting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, 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.
Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.
Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.
At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.
Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.