cancel_queryStops a running query while preserving already written parts, which stay readable until the result expires.
Stops a running query. Parts already written stay readable until the result expires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resultId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool "stops a running query" while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, implying no state change. That is inconsistent: cancellation is a state mutation. The added note about partial results remaining readable is useful, but the core safety profile is contradictory.
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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the retention behavior following. Every sentence carries information, though a routing hint would improve it.
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 tool with no output schema, explaining the retention and expiration of partial results is good context. But the undocumented resultId and the annotation contradiction leave real gaps for an agent.
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?
One required parameter (resultId) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what a resultId is or where to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name at all.
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 and resource: "Stops a running query." An agent can grasp the action immediately. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_result or read_result, which handle query output.
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 on when to cancel versus using get_result/read_result, no mention of prerequisites such as needing an active query or a valid resultId, and no note on what happens after cancellation (e.g., how to fetch remaining results).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.