Cancel a running notebook job to stop execution and prevent unnecessary compute usage.
Cancel a running notebook job instance.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "cancel_notebook_job"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | ||
| notebook | No | ||
| workspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action as canceling but does not disclose side effects, whether cancellation is reversible, idempotency, or what happens to the job after cancellation. For a mutating/destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter guidance captured in other dimensions.
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?
Given three optional but completely undocumented parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool reliably. It does not explain how to identify the notebook job instance being canceled or what the expected result is.
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 0%, and the description provides no information about how job_id, notebook, or workspace should be used or whether they are alternative identifiers. An agent cannot determine which parameter or combination is needed to cancel a specific job.
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 ('Cancel') and resource ('running notebook job instance'), and the name clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_notebook_job and get_run_status. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.
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 should be used only for active notebook jobs, which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like get_run_status, nor does it mention conditions like job completion or prerequisite identifiers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.