file_task_cancelCancel a running file background task, such as search or compression, by its task ID on an fnOS NAS. Stops long-running operations when they are no longer needed.
取消文件后台任务（搜索/压缩等长任务，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 | 后台任务 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a 写操作 (mutating) and that it targets long-running background tasks, but says nothing about required permissions, what happens to partial results of the cancelled job, or whether cancellation is reversible.
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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the qualifying detail in a parenthetical. Efficient, though the terseness leans toward under-specification rather than tight structure.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. However, for a write/cancel operation with zero annotations and many cancel-style siblings, the description omits the safety and routing context an agent needs.
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% and all five parameters (host, port, scheme, profile, task_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: cancelling file background tasks, with examples (search/compress). It does not differentiate itself from the obviously overlapping sibling file_search_cancel, which it arguably blurs by naming "搜索" as a task type, but the core operation is unmistakable.
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 parenthetical implies scope (long-running search/compress jobs) so an agent can infer when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to the nearest alternative (file_search_cancel) for deciding between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.