Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

web_crawl_cancel

Request cooperative crawl cancellation. Requests cancellation of an owned crawl job. This control call does not reserve, charge, or settle credits; retained successful work is reconciled by the job settlement worker.

Instructions

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	Owned crawl job ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.12Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that cancellation is cooperative (not forced), that the call is a control operation which 'does not reserve, charge, or settle credits,' and that retained successful work is reconciled by a settlement worker. This billing/reconciliation context is genuinely non-obvious and useful; it only omits permission requirements and idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The action and its 'cooperative' nature are front-loaded, which is good. However, the first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Request cooperative crawl cancellation' vs 'Requests cancellation of an owned crawl job'), so one of them is wasted space rather than earning its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important ground an agent needs: what it does, that it is cooperative, and that it has no credit impact. Only the post-call state and any permission prerequisites are left unstated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented as 'Owned crawl job ID'. The description adds only the reiteration of 'owned crawl job,' which mirrors rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Requests cancellation of an owned crawl job') and adds the distinguishing 'control call' framing that separates it from web_crawl/web_crawl_status/web_crawl_results. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the reader must infer the boundary from context, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as web_crawl_status for monitoring. The word 'cooperative' hints that cancellation is a request rather than a guarantee, but the description never tells the agent when to call this instead of just letting a job run.

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

Deploy Server

web_crawl_cancel

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools