Forcefully stop a Temporal workflow execution by ID, optionally providing a reason or namespace to end stuck or unwanted runs.
Forcefully terminate a workflow execution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason for termination | |
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| workflow_id | Yes | The workflow execution ID to terminate |
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 burden. 'Forcefully' hints at a non-graceful path but does not state irreversibility, whether cleanup/compensation runs, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens to an already-completed workflow. For a destructive operation with zero structured safety hints, this is inadequate.
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 zero waste. It is efficient but arguably too terse for a destructive tool where a second sentence on consequences would earn its place.
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?
A destructive, irreversible-style operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a close sibling (cancel_workflow) that demands differentiation. The description omits the consequences and routing logic an agent needs to call it safely and correctly.
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%, documenting workflow_id, reason, and namespace (including enum and default behavior). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('workflow execution'), and 'Forcefully' signals a distinct intensity. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling cancel_workflow, which is the key conceptual neighbor for this operation, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 guidance on when to terminate vs. cancel_workflow, which coexists in the sibling list and differs only in gracefulness. For a destructive terminal operation, the absence of any when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.