Cancel an active IC-CAP simulation job by job ID to stop processing and free resources. Use when a running job needs to be terminated, with explicit failure reporting if cancellation fails.
Request IC-CAP Stop Activity for a running job; failure is reported explicitly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that failure is reported explicitly, but it does not clarify whether the stop is asynchronous, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or what a successful result looks like. This is too thin for a mutation-like control action.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the target action and a notable behavior (explicit failure reporting) in the fewest words possible.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about what happens when the tool is called, including success/failure semantics and any asynchronous behavior. It gives only a minimal action statement and one behavioral note, leaving important operational context absent for an agent invoking a job-control 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter. It only implies that the job_id identifies a running job; it never explicitly explains the parameter, its source, or any formatting requirements. This is minimal added meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 clear action ('Request IC-CAP Stop Activity') and a specific resource ('a running job'), so an agent can tell this tool cancels/stops a job. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling job tools like iccap_job_get or iccap_job_list, but the cancel/stop intent is unambiguous.
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 'for a running job' gives clear context about when the tool applies, and the tool name paired with the description implies it is the cancellation counterpart to job listing/retrieval. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.