Stops a running background file transfer and keeps partial data without deleting or overwriting remote files. Use it to halt a specific transfer job on an ESXi host.
请求停止后台传输，保留部分数据；不会自动删除/覆盖远端文件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it retains partial data and will not automatically delete or overwrite remote files. It still omits details like whether the job can be resumed or what auth is needed, but the added data-handling behavior is valuable.
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 tight sentence with no filler. The key behavioral constraint is front-loaded after the primary action, and nothing is wasted.
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 mutation tool with a required job_id, an undocumented dry_run parameter, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks parameter semantics and job-context details needed to call it correctly.
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 0% for two parameters, including the required job_id and the dry_run flag. The description never mentions either parameter, so it provides no meaning beyond the bare schema titles.
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?
Specific verb (停止) and resource (后台传输), with added scope about data retention and remote file safety. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like transfer_start, transfer_status, and transfer_resume.
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 to use it (to stop a background transfer) but does not state when to prefer cancel over alternatives such as resume or letting it finish, nor any prerequisites. Implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.