materials-studio-mcp-moc

md_task_cancel

Cancel a specific task and terminate its associated worker process tree to free up resources and prevent unintended background activity.

Instructions

Plan or cancel one owned task and its fixed worker process tree.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "owner_capability": "<owner_capability>"
    },
    "name": "md_task_cancel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`owner_capability`	Yes
`confirmation_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It vaguely mentions impacting a 'fixed worker process tree' but doesn't clarify whether cancellation is destructive, whether confirmation is needed, or what 'plan' means.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is short and front-loaded, but not effective.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no parameter documentation and no usage context, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter details.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of task_id, owner_capability, dry_run, or confirmation_token. It only implies ownership but leaves the rest ambiguous.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description mentions 'Plan or cancel one owned task and its fixed worker process tree,' but the verb is ambiguous ('Plan' or 'cancel') and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling task tools like md_task_submit or md_task_query. It identifies a resource (owned task) but the action is muddled.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as md_task_retry or md_task_submit. It doesn't indicate prerequisites or scenarios where cancellation is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server