Stops future runs for a schedule and requests cancellation of the active run, preserving existing history and reports.
Stop future runs and request cancellation of the active run (worker polls every second). Preserve history/reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schedule_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real context beyond the annotations: the cancellation is asynchronous because a worker polls every second, and existing history/reports survive the stop. This clarifies the effective latency and the data impact of a non-readOnly, non-idempotent operation, which annotations alone would not convey. It does not say what happens if there is no active run to cancel.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with the primary action first and a parenthetical qualifier on timing. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
Given an output schema exists and annotations declare the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: what is stopped, that cancellation is asynchronous, and that history survives. The only gap is undefined behavior when nothing is running, which is minor for a single-parameter control tool.
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%, so the single schedule_id parameter is documented nowhere. The name is nearly self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, but the description does not compensate at all — no statement of what the id identifies or where to obtain it.
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: stopping future runs of a schedule and requesting cancellation of the currently active run. The added "Preserve history/reports" clause implicitly separates it from fofa_schedule_delete and fofa_job_cancel, though neither sibling is named explicitly.
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: "Stop future runs" tells the agent this halts a schedule without removing it, and "Preserve history/reports" hints at the contrast with fofa_schedule_delete. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.