ppdm-mcp-server

bulk_cancel_jobs

Cancel all currently running PPDM jobs, optionally filtered by asset type, to stop unwanted backup activity and free resources.

Instructions

Cancel all currently running PPDM jobs, optionally filtered by asset type.

Tool call template

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": "bulk_cancel_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset_type`	No	Only cancel jobs for this asset type (e.g. KUBERNETES)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a destructive bulk mutation, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, the effect on in-flight job data, permissions required, or whether a confirmation is expected. Its only behavioral contribution is scoping to 'currently running' jobs, which is insufficient for a cancel-all operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately terse, though that terseness comes partly at the cost of the behavioral detail a destructive tool needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-annotation, destructive bulk-cancel with no output schema, an agent needs to know whether this is reversible, what it returns, and how it interacts with the granular cancel tools. None of that is present, so the definition is under-specified relative to the tool's risk.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter is 100% documented in the schema, including an example value, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that the filter is optional, matching the optional-in-schema status rather than extending it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('all currently running PPDM jobs') with explicit scope ('all'), which distinguishes it from the singular cancel_activity or cancel_restore siblings by implying bulk operation. It never names a sibling or clarifies the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'all currently running PPDM jobs' signals the bulk-abort scenario and 'optionally filtered' hints when to pass asset_type. There is no explicit when-to-use versus cancel_activity/list_running_jobs guidance and no stated preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.