Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Cancel Job Tool

cancel_job_tool

Stop a running CI/CD job by providing its project and job IDs, halting execution in GitLab.

Instructions

Cancel a running CI/CD job.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_job_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesJob ID
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / job_id / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not explain what cancellation does to a running job, whether it is idempotent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to logs and artifacts.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than rich conciseness.

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?

The schema and output schema are complete, but the description omits essential context for a mutation tool with no annotations: cancellation semantics, side effects, and differentiation from sibling cancellation/deletion tools. An agent could invoke it but would not understand the consequences.

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 100%, so both project_id and job_id are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about accepted formats, path-vs-ID behavior, or constraints.

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 verb and resource ('Cancel a running CI/CD job'), so the purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as cancel_pipeline_tool, retry_job_tool, or delete_job_tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use cancel_job_tool versus cancel_pipeline_tool, retry_job_tool, or delete_job_tool. The agent is left to infer the correct tool from names alone.

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