Interrupts a running Codex task, stopping it immediately while preserving completed output and file changes. Safe on finished tasks; threads can be resumed later.
中断一个正在运行的任务：Codex 收到后立即停止，已完成的部分输出和文件改动保留，任务状态变为 interrupted，结果可用 codex_status 查看。对已结束的任务调用无副作用，直接返回其结果。被中断的 thread 之后仍可用 codex_spawn(thread_id=...) 续问。只想改方向不想停，用 codex_steer。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 任务的 8 位 id（codex_spawn / codex_review 返回的） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"任务的 8 位 id（codex_spawn / codex_review 返回的）"v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the mutation/idempotency profile, but the description discloses the concrete behavioral consequences: Codex halts immediately, partial output and file changes are retained, status transitions to interrupted, and the interrupted thread remains resumable via codex_spawn(thread_id=...). It also reinforces idempotentHint explicitly for already-finished tasks.
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?
Every clause earns its place: the core action is front-loaded, followed by state/retention behavior, the no-op case, resumability, and the sibling alternative. No filler despite the density.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the state transition, side-effect profile, retention semantics, error-case behavior, and where to read results. Nothing material is 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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains it as the 8-digit task id returned by codex_spawn/codex_review. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource (interrupt a running task) and immediately names the relevant siblings — codex_status for viewing results and codex_steer for redirecting without stopping. An agent can distinguish this from all five sibling tools without opening any schema.
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?
It explicitly covers when to use it (a running task), what happens when the condition does not hold (calling on a finished task is side-effect-free and returns its result), and the alternative when you do not actually want to stop (codex_steer). This is when/when-not/alternative guidance in full.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.