Cancel a running or pending experiment and request safe termination; status shows 'cancelling' until any active background thread finishes unwinding.
Cancel a running or pending experiment. If a background thread is actively running, this only requests cancellation -- status reads 'cancelling' until it finishes unwinding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| experiment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description clearly discloses important asynchronous behavior: cancellation may only be requested while a background thread is running, and status remains 'cancelling' until unwinding finishes. It does not contradict the destructive or idempotent hints.
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 two efficient sentences with no wasted text. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the important asynchronous caveat.
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 one-parameter cancellation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides the key behavioral nuance an agent needs. It does not explain return values or permission requirements, but no output schema exists and those gaps are relatively minor here.
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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not mention the sole parameter or its expected format. However, with only one required integer named experiment_id, the parameter meaning is largely self-evident from the schema.
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 and resource: cancel an experiment. It also narrows the eligible states to 'running or pending,' which lets an agent distinguish this from related experiment tools such as get_experiment_status or run_experiment.
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 implies when cancellation applies by saying 'running or pending experiment,' but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. An agent must infer that already-completed experiments are out of scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.