Forcefully terminate a standalone Temporal activity execution by activity ID, optionally specifying run ID, namespace, and reason.
Forcefully terminate a standalone activity execution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason for termination | |
| run_id | No | Run ID for the standalone activity execution | |
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| activity_id | Yes | Standalone activity execution ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / namespaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+ "enum": [
+ "default"
+ ],
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.9.0v1.5.0v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Forcefully terminate' implies abrupt, likely irreversible destruction, but it says nothing about what happens to a running activity's state, whether results are discarded, permission requirements, or idempotency.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive mutation rather than genuine tightness.
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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a required identifier plus run_id that must be matched to the right execution, the description is too thin. It omits what termination does to in-flight state and how it relates to cancel_activity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (activity_id, run_id, namespace, reason) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 ('terminate') and resource ('standalone activity execution'), and the adverb 'forcefully' hints at the abrupt nature. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the sibling cancel_activity, which is the near-identical alternate an agent must choose between.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of cancel_activity as the graceful alternative. The agent is left to infer that 'forcefully' means this is the escalation path over cancellation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.