cancel_power_actionCancel a scheduled shutdown, restart, or sleep before it executes. Prevents an impending power action from taking effect.
Cancela el apagado, reinicio o reposo programado, si todavía no se ejecutó.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the critical timing behavior: the cancellation only takes effect if the action has not yet been executed. This clarifies a key edge case not captured in annotations. It does not specify what happens if no scheduled action exists, but that is a minor omission for such a simple tool.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action verb ('Cancela'). It contains no redundant information and is easily scannable by an agent, with all necessary context packed into a minimal structure.
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 zero-parameter cancel tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what action it cancels, the condition under which it works, and implicitly its idempotent nature. The tool's simplicity means no further detail is required for an agent to invoke it 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers all input requirements (100% coverage). There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies since no parameter documentation is needed.
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?
The description states a specific verb 'Cancela' (cancels) with a clear resource: scheduled shutdown, restart, or sleep. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that initiate actions (shutdown, restart, sleep) or retrieve information (get_power_action), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
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 description provides a clear condition 'si todavía no se ejecutó' (if it has not yet been executed), which tells the agent when it is appropriate to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the condition itself implies the timing constraint, and the tool's role is evident from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.