hamgoose

by cooked-ham

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

mission_cancel

Cancel an active mission by ID and remove its associated git worktrees to free resources.

Instructions

Cancel a mission and clean up its worktrees.

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": {
      "mission_id": "<mission_id>"
    },
    "name": "mission_cancel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	No
`mission_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key side effect: cancellation plus worktree cleanup, which signals destructiveness. However, it does not state whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to running processes, or what cleanup entails in practice.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the cleanup behavior is mentioned immediately.

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?

Given the destructive nature of cancellation and an undocumented optional repo parameter, this minimal description leaves important context missing. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool's effect on mission state and worktrees is only vaguely conveyed.

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 adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain that mission_id identifies the mission to cancel, nor does it clarify the optional repo parameter's role in locating or cleaning up worktrees. The agent must guess at the intended semantics.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Cancel') and a clear resource ('mission'), and adds a distinctive behavioral detail ('clean up its worktrees'). It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like mission_pause or mission_resume, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mission_pause or mission_complete_feature. There is no mention of prerequisites, when cancellation is appropriate, or when a different mission lifecycle tool should be chosen.

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