Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openclaw-mcp

openclaw-mcp

by GabrielBertoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

openclaw_task_cancel

Cancel a pending task before it starts by providing its task ID.

Instructions

Cancel a pending task. Only works for tasks that haven't started yet.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "openclaw_task_cancel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe task ID to cancel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cancellation only works on pending tasks, which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the task is permanently removed, whether it can be undone, or what happens if the task has already started). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation, but the 'only works' statement provides some transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant information. Perfectly sized.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the purpose and the main constraint, but omits what happens on success/failure and whether cancellation is reversible. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this leaves some ambiguity, so it's not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter task_id is clearly described as 'The task ID to cancel.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Cancel' with resource 'task' and adds a scope condition ('Only works for tasks that haven't started yet'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like openclaw_task_status and openclaw_task_list. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the condition for use: tasks must be pending/not yet started. This provides clear context for when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list doesn't contain another cancel tool, so the guidance is sufficient. The restriction is explicit, earning a 4.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools