slskd_cancel_downloadCancels or removes an active or queued Soulseek transfer using the peer username and transfer ID.
Cancel or remove an active/queued transfer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Transfer ID (as returned by slskd_get_transfers). | |
| username | Yes | Soulseek peer username associated with the transfer. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never discloses irreversibility, whether cancelled partial files are deleted or retained, or permission requirements. The 'cancel or remove' phrasing also leaves two distinct behaviors (stop vs. delete) conflated without explaining when each applies.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient rather than padded, though the extreme brevity is what leaves the behavioral gaps noted above.
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 values need not be explained, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. But for a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits the operation's consequences and preconditions, leaving the agent materially under-informed.
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%, and the schema already documents both 'id' (with its source, slskd_get_transfers) and 'username'. The description adds nothing about the parameters, 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?
States a specific verb pair (cancel/remove) and a clearly bounded resource (active/queued transfer), which is unambiguous against siblings like slskd_download or slskd_get_transfers. It stops short of naming how it differs from other transfer-lifecycle tools, but the action is clear.
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 qualifier 'active/queued' implies a precondition for use, so an agent can infer this only applies to in-flight or pending transfers. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do for completed/failed transfers, and no alternative tool routed for other transfer operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.