Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shopfloor-mcp

shopfloor-mcp

by champion-buzz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cancel_block

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a scheduled block and return its work order to open when no blocks remain.

Instructions

Remove one scheduled block. The work order goes back to 'open' if it has no blocks left.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "block_id": "<block_id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
block_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information the annotations cannot: that removing the last block flips the parent work order back to 'open'. That is a real side effect an agent needs before calling, though it omits what happens to the block record itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the side effect second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the critical missing piece (work-order status rollback). It could still mention failure behavior for invalid or already-cancelled block ids, which is the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: 'one scheduled block' communicates single-target granularity but says nothing about block_id's source, format, or the >0 constraint. With only one required parameter the gap is small, but the description leaves parameter meaning entirely to the schema title.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one scheduled block.' The single-object scope ('one') and the block entity clearly separate it from schedule_work_order and the reporting siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case (unscheduling a previously scheduled block) but never states when to prefer this over rescheduling or calling schedule_work_order again, and gives no prerequisites or error conditions. Usage is inferable, not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools