ciso_assistant_api_chat_agent_runs_cancel_createCancel an active chat agent run so the worker halts before its next step. Use it to stop in-progress agent execution by run ID.
Mark an active run as cancelled. The worker checks before each step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: cancellation is cooperative and takes effect at a step boundary, not immediately. It omits what happens on an already-finished run (error vs. no-op) and whether the call returns before the run actually stops.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the mechanism detail follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema.
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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema needs little, and the cooperative-cancellation note covers the key behavioral surprise. Still, the 'id' reference and the failure mode for non-active runs are gaps an agent would hit in practice.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'id' is an untyped string with no description. The description implies it identifies the run to cancel but never says so explicitly, nor what ID form (UUID, ref) is accepted. Low coverage means the description should compensate, and it does not.
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+resource: mark an active chat agent run as cancelled. The phrase 'the worker checks before each step' clarifies it operates on the agent run loop rather than being a generic status update, which distinguishes it from siblings like runs_batch_action_create. It stops short of naming the alternatives explicitly.
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: nothing says to prefer this over runs_batch_action_create or start_questionnaire_prefill_create, no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens when the run is not active. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.