Send a response after a cancelled stdio call to test protocol handling. Verify that late replies are ignored correctly during MCP reliability testing.
Send a response after this call is cancelled (stdio only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of sending a response after cancellation and restricts it to stdio, which are non-obvious traits, but it does not detail what response is sent or error behavior outside stdio.
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 wasted words, covering action, timing, and transport constraint efficiently.
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 low-complexity, zero-parameter test tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives enough context to understand what it does and its transport limitation. It could optionally clarify the nature of the response or side 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. This meets the baseline of 4 for a no-param tool.
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 specific action (send a response) and timing condition (after cancellation), and adds a transport restriction (stdio only). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like duplicate_response or disconnect.
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 stdio-only constraint implies usage context, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide explicit preconditions. Usage must be inferred from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.