Cancel a running or queued z/OS job through the z/OSMF jobs API, with write access gated to prevent unintended mainframe changes.
Cancel a running or queued job via the z/OSMF jobs API (gated write).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | JES job id, e.g. "JOB01234". | |
| environment | No | Named target environment (see list_environments), e.g. "dev", "prod". Omit to use the server default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds 'gated write,' which usefully signals that approval or gating may be required. However, it does not explain what happens to the job, whether cancellation is reversible, or how gating works in practice.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and scope are immediately clear.
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?
The tool is simple with two parameters covered by the schema and safety traits covered by annotations. The description is adequate but leaves gaps around gating mechanics and post-cancellation behavior, which matter for a destructive write operation.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for full coverage.
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: cancel a running or queued job. The scope (running or queued) is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lifecycle tools like hold_job or release_job, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'running or queued job' implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent can infer usage from the verb and resource, but the routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.