melra_workflow_cancelCancel nonterminal workflow nodes and their tasks by workflow ID. Use it to stop active workflows and associated tasks cooperatively.
Cooperatively cancel nonterminal workflow nodes and their tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflowId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: 'cooperatively' tells the agent this is a graceful request rather than an immediate hard kill, and the scope statement shows the cancellation cascades to child tasks of nonterminal nodes only.
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 filler. It is sized correctly for the operation, though the extreme brevity leaves useful detail (parameter, post-cancel state) unstated.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the cooperative nature but omits whether cancellation can partially fail, what state the workflow ends in, and how to verify with melra_workflow_status. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
The single parameter workflowId has 0% schema description coverage - only a UUID format and regex pattern - and the description never mentions it, its format, or the requirement that it reference a nonterminal workflow. With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate but does not.
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 (cancel) and a precise resource (nonterminal workflow nodes and their tasks), which implicitly separates it from the single-task sibling melra_task_cancel by noting the cascade to tasks. It stops short of naming any sibling for explicit differentiation.
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 rather than stated: 'nonterminal' signals the precondition that only active/running workflows can be cancelled, but the description never says when to prefer this over melra_task_cancel or melra_workflow_control, nor what to do afterwards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.