Stop an active local optimization job and its current check; a provider request already sent may still incur billing.
Cancel a local active job and its current check. A provider request already sent may still be billed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive posture is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: cancellation is local-only and cannot claw back an already-sent provider request, which may still be billed. That billing caveat is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.
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?
Two sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the billing caveat in the follow-up where it belongs. Every sentence earns its place.
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 cancel tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the key side effect (residual provider billing). It stops short of stating the resulting job state or idempotency behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required run_id parameter, and the description never mentions it or its expected format/origin. With low coverage the description is supposed to compensate, and it does not; the only mitigation is that run_id is self-describing from the sibling tools' naming.
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 local active job and its current check.' This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling read/submit tools (submit_optimization, get_optimization_status, get_optimization_result), so an agent can route 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?
Usage is implied by the verb – you cancel an active job rather than a completed one – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the preconditions (e.g., job must be active).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.