DSGVO.pro — German Digital-Law Compliance

Cancel Running Scan

cancel-scan

DestructiveIdempotent

🔑 Requires the same API key that started the scan. Stops a scan that is still running (pending/crawling/scanning) and returns the quota unit it cost, if the scan was started within the last hour. Use it when check-compliance was called by mistake or the wrong URL was scanned. A scan that already completed or failed cannot be cancelled and nothing is refunded. Scans started with a different API key are reported as not found. Free — does not use quota itself.

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": {
      "scanId": "<scanId>"
    },
    "name": "cancel-scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scanId`	Yes	The scan ID returned by check-compliance

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`error`	No	Set when nothing was cancelled (unknown/foreign scan, already finished, Trigger.dev error)
`scanId`	No
`status`	No	"cancelled" on success; the actual status if the scan had already finished
`details`	No
`message`	No
`refunded`	No	true if one quota unit was returned
`runsCancelled`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: an API-key auth requirement, a one-hour refund window, no refund for finished/failed scans, cross-tenant scans surfacing as not found, and that the call itself is free. Nothing contradicts destructiveHint=true / idempotentHint=true; the cancellation is indeed the destructive, repeatable action described.

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?

Front-loaded with the credential requirement, then behavior, then usage, then exclusions — a logical order with almost no waste. It is a dense single paragraph with an emoji prefix, which slightly hurts scannability but costs no real comprehension.

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

Completeness5/5

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 not be explained, yet the description still notes the quota-unit refund. For a destructive, one-parameter mutation, the auth, state preconditions, and refund rules cover everything an agent needs before calling.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single scanId parameter is already documented as the value returned by check-compliance. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: the ID is only valid for scans started with the same API key, otherwise the call reports not found.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Stops a scan') and narrows scope to still-running states (pending/crawling/scanning), plus the side effect of refunding the quota unit. This makes it clearly distinguishable from check-compliance, get-scan-status, and get-scan-result.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('check-compliance was called by mistake or the wrong URL was scanned') and when-not ('A scan that already completed or failed cannot be cancelled and nothing is refunded'). The cross-key case ('reported as not found') further defines the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DSGVO.pro — German Digital-Law Compliance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?