forms_notifications_cancelCancel an unfinished Forms notification run using its notification_id; already canceled or finished runs return result.status skip.
Stop an integration run that has not finished.
A run that is already canceled or finished answers result.status skip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes | Notification id (integer) from notifications_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing that an already-canceled or finished run returns result.status 'skip' rather than erroring, and with no output schema this is the only source for that return signal.
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 with zero waste; the primary action is front-loaded and the no-op behavior is stated compactly. 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 single-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the notable return edge case. It could still point at forms_notifications_restart for recovery, but that is a minor omission.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as an integer id sourced from notifications_list. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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 ('Stop') and resource ('integration run'), and qualifies the state ('that has not finished'), which clearly maps to a cancellation operation. It does not name the close siblings (forms_notifications_restart, forms_notifications_status_get), so an agent must infer differentiation, keeping it short of a 5.
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 'not finished' qualifier implies the right context (in-progress run), and the second sentence explains what happens when the precondition fails. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the alternative (restart) for a run the agent may actually want to resume.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.