Halt an in-flight Batch job run by passing its job ID, stopping ongoing scraping work before it finishes.
Stop an in-flight Batch job run (POST /jobs/:id/stop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Batch job id to stop |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is an irreversible mutating operation. The description adds the endpoint and the in-flight scoping but says nothing about idempotency, behavior on job completion, or whether partial results survive, which matters for a destructive call.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource and tucks the endpoint into parentheses. No filler, nothing redundant.
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 destructive stop operation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is adequate; no output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main omission is sibling routing and post-cancel effects.
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 100% with a single job_id parameter already documented as 'Batch job id to stop'. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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?
Specific verb 'Stop' plus resource 'in-flight Batch job run', with the underlying endpoint (POST /jobs/:id/stop) pinned down. It is clearly distinguishable from batch_wait, batch_status and batch_results, though it never explicitly names those siblings or clarifies stop-vs-cancel semantics implied by the name batch_cancel.
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?
'In-flight' implicitly scopes usage to currently running jobs, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over batch_wait or how to handle an already-finished/failed job, so usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.