vibekit_cancel_taskCancel a running task by taskId. No-op if it has already finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task ID to cancel (from vibekit_submit_task) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Whether the call succeeded. | |
| data | No | Cancellation confirmation for the task. | |
| error | No | Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Cancellation confirmation for the task."
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, and the description adds 'No-op if it has already finished', which reinforces idempotency. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permissions) are disclosed, but the description does not contradict annotations.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information.
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 simple cancellation tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter source, and idempotency. No further details are needed given the tool's simplicity and the presence of other structured fields.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a description, and the tool description adds the source context 'from vibekit_submit_task', which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.
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 tool's action: 'Cancel a running task by taskId'. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings, such as 'vibekit_submit_task' and 'vibekit_wait_for_task', by focusing on cancellation.
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 implies usage for cancelling running tasks but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but vibekit_chat and vibekit_submit_task both handle AI-driven code changes, leading to potential confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but overlap exists.
All tools use the 'vibekit_' prefix and lowercase with underscores. Most follow a verb_noun pattern, but a few (e.g., 'vibekit_account') are noun-only, causing minor inconsistency.
36 tools is on the high side, covering many aspects of the platform. While mostly justified, the count feels slightly excessive and could be streamlined.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of apps, databases, tasks, schedules, skills, QA, and environment variables. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.