RCF MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compute.cancel_run

compute_cancel_run

Cancel an active compute run by its run ID via Slurm scancel or process-group signals, with an optional confirmation step before termination.

Instructions

Cancel a run through its executor (scancel on Slurm, process-group signal elsewhere).

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "compute_cancel_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes
`confirm`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds the actual cancellation mechanism (Slurm scancel vs. process-group signal), which is real behavioral detail. However it omits the consequences of cancellation — whether partial results/outputs are lost, whether the operation is idempotent, and what happens if the run already finished.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical mechanism detail earns its place by explaining how the cancellation is performed.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no output schema and only a single annotation, the description should cover the confirm gate, post-cancel state, and failure modes. Instead it stops at the mechanism, leaving the agent without enough to call it safely or interpret results.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains neither run_id's source (e.g. from compute_list_runs/compute_submit_run) nor the confirm boolean, which defaults to false and is presumably a safety gate. Only the executor target is hinted at.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('cancel a run') and adds the mechanism used ('scancel on Slurm, process-group signal elsewhere'), which no sibling tool covers. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but 'cancel' is unambiguous against the list of list/get/submit/plan tools.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated (e.g. the run must be active/pending), and no mention of the confirm flag's role or when it must be true. The agent must infer all operational context.

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