cancel_generationStop a running generation and automatically refund its credits. Use when an AI agent needs to halt an active 3D Texel job by providing a generation ID.
Cancel a running generation; its credits are refunded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| generation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive operation. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: cancelling is non-destructive to the user's credits because 'its credits are refunded', which tells the agent the cost impact of the action.
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?
A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the refund consequence attached via a semicolon. Nothing wasted, nothing missing.
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 one-parameter cancel operation, the description plus destructive annotations cover the essentials, and the refund note closes the main cost uncertainty. The only gap is the lack of any statement about what the call returns or confirming the post-state of the generation.
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?
One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema explains nothing about generation_id. The description only implies it identifies the 'running generation'; it adds no format, source, or constraints beyond that implication.
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 and resource ('Cancel a running generation') with no ambiguity, and 'running' scopes which generations are eligible. No sibling offers cancellation, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from the generate_*/get_*/list_* family.
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?
The word 'running' implies the tool applies only to in-progress generations, which is implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. already-finished or failed generations) and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.