Skip to main content
Glama

ffv2_job_cancel

Idempotent

Cancels a specified FFmpeg media job, stops its process, and preserves any partial output.

Instructions

নির্দিষ্ট job বাতিল করুন; তার process-ই থামবে, partial রাখা হবে।

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "ffv2_job_cancel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses real behavioral consequences: the job's process will be stopped and partial results will be retained. This is exactly the kind of effect information an agent needs before invoking a cancel, though it says nothing about what happens when the job is already finished or unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a semicolon-separated effect clause — no filler, and the action precedes the consequences. It is efficient, though reliance on a single language without any structural breakdown limits accessibility for all agents.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter cancellation tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the essentials are present: the action and its effect on running work and partial data. However, edge-case behavior (cancelling an already-completed or nonexistent job) and any alternative-tool routing are absent.

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?

With one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description only implies that job_id identifies the target ('নির্দিষ্ট job'). It adds no format or provenance detail (the 32-hex pattern lives in the schema), so it neither compensates for nor enriches the parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('নির্দিষ্ট job বাতিল করুন' = cancel the specified job), which clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like ffv2_job_status and ffv2_job_retry. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the retry sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as ffv2_job_retry for restarting a failed job or ffv2_job_status for checking state. Usage is only implied by the verb 'cancel'.

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