deerflow_cancel_runInterrupt an active DeerFlow research run by supplying its thread and run IDs, returning an accepted status to stop in-progress work.
Cancel an in-flight DeerFlow run (interrupts it). Returns the accepted status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run id to cancel. | |
| thread_id | Yes | The thread id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| thread_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds the interrupt semantics and the fact that it returns an accepted status, but omits behavior for already-finished runs and does not reinforce idempotency in prose.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, the return value needn't be detailed beyond the brief 'accepted status' note, and the parameters are fully described in the schema. The only gap is the absence of edge-case behavior for non-in-flight runs, which is minor given the low-complexity two-parameter signature.
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 both parameters (run_id, thread_id) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, source, or relationship detail (e.g., where thread_id comes from) beyond the schema.
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 resource (an in-flight DeerFlow run) and clarifies scope with 'interrupts it', which helpfully separates it from status/progress siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.
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: cancel a run that is in flight. There is no guidance on when-not-to-cancel (e.g., run already completed/failed) or how this relates to siblings like deerflow_wait_activity or deerflow_run_status, so an agent must infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.