together_cancel_fine_tuneCancel a running fine-tuning job. Cannot be resumed, but a new job can continue from its last checkpoint via from_checkpoint. Together: POST /fine-tunes/{id}/cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fine_tune_id | Yes | The job id, e.g. ft-abc123. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: cancellation is irreversible and a new job can resume from the last checkpoint. It does not cover auth requirements or response behavior, but the irreversibility disclosure is the key behavior an agent needs.
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?
Two tight sentences plus an endpoint reference, with the action and its irreversibility front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.
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 one-parameter cancel operation with an existing destructive annotation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and recovery. It omits minor details like possible response format, but these are not essential for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or meaning beyond referring to a job id implicitly, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (fine-tuning job), distinguishing it from sibling operations like get, list, and create. The API endpoint reinforces the exact action being performed.
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?
Clearly indicates the tool is for canceling a running job and provides the critical consequence that it cannot be resumed, along with the checkpoint recovery path. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, but the purpose is narrow enough that no exclusions are necessary.
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.