Halt an active Ansible automation task in SemaphoreUI by specifying the project ID and task ID, terminating its execution immediately.
Stop a running task.
Args: project_id: ID of the project task_id: ID of the task to stop
Returns: Task stop result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states the tool stops a running task, implying mutation, but fails to disclose what happens if the task is already stopped, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
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?
The description is very short (three lines of meaningful text) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the structure could be improved by separating usage from parameter details, but it remains clear and without extraneous content.
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 simple tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value ('Task stop result') or any edge cases (e.g., task already stopped). The presence of an output schema reduces the need but the description still lacks helpful context.
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?
The description adds basic semantics for the two parameters ('ID of the project' and 'ID of the task to stop') where the schema only supplies titles and types. However, these definitions are generic and do not provide additional constraints or formatting details 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?
The description explicitly states 'Stop a running task,' which clearly identifies the verb (stop) and resource (running task). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'bulk_stop_tasks' (multiple tasks) and 'stop_all_template_tasks' (template-scoped), making the purpose 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bulk_stop_tasks' or 'stop_all_template_tasks.' The description lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.