file_search_cancelCancel a running full-disk search task on an fnOS NAS by its task ID. Stops the search operation when you need to halt or clean up an in-progress scan.
取消全盘搜索任务（写操作）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| port | No | NAS 端口，如 5667（HTTPS）/5666（HTTP）/443 | |
| scheme | No | 传输协议 | |
| profile | No | 独立 session profile 名称，默认使用 default | |
| task_id | Yes | 搜索任务 ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The parenthetical 写操作 correctly flags a mutating operation, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether cancellation is immediate/reversible, what happens to partial results, or how the task_id is obtained. That is a thin disclosure for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 5-parameter write operation with no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits prerequisites, the link to the originating search call, and any post-cancellation behavior. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the operational context an agent needs is largely missing.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including task_id ('搜索任务 ID'). The description adds no syntax, format, or provenance detail (e.g. where to obtain task_id) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (取消/cancel) plus a precise resource (全盘搜索任务/full-disk search task), so the agent knows exactly what is being stopped. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby file_task_cancel sibling, which likely cancels a broader class of tasks.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as file_task_cancel. The agent must infer that this applies only to search tasks initiated via file_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.