Cancels a running job and cleans up its active operation, stopping work and releasing associated resources.
Cancel a job and clean up its active operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| elapsed_ms | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes 'clean up its active operation', hinting at side effects beyond cancellation, but never says what is destroyed, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens to in-flight work. With annotations carrying the risk signal, this is adequate but thin.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing wasted, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than economy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained. However, for a destructive single-target mutation with zero annotation-independent detail, the description leaves out the practical consequences of the cleanup and the state the job must be in.
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 parameter, and the description never mentions job_id or its expected source. The schema's pattern and length constraints do the documentation work; the description adds nothing about the identifier, but only one param exists so the burden is small.
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+resource ('Cancel a job') and adds scope via 'clean up its active operation', which meaningfully separates it from the read-only sibling job_status. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose 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?
No guidance on when to cancel versus checking job_status first, no preconditions, and no note on what happens if the job is already complete or already cancelled. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.