carmaker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Cancel a parameter study

cm_study_cancel

Destructive

Stop the run in progress, skip the remaining ones and restore the changed workspace values. Only cancel a study this conversation started.

Instructions

Stop the run in progress, skip the remaining ones and restore the changed workspace values. Only cancel a study this conversation started.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`study`	Yes	Id of the study to cancel, as cm_study_start returned it. It must be named: a study is not cancelled by default

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.0Oct 12, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / study / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / study / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

changedInput schema / properties / study / description

Previous value: -"Study id (default: the latest)"New value: +"Id of the study to cancel, as cm_study_start returned it. It must be named: a study is not cancelled by default"

addedInput schema / properties / study / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "study"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it spells out the mechanics of the destruction (stops the in-progress run, skips the queued ones) and the compensating action (restores changed workspace values), plus an ownership precondition. It leaves open what happens on failure or to partially applied changes.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the effects are front-loaded and the ownership constraint follows as a short qualifier. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering the destructive/closed-world profile, the description only needs to carry effects and prerequisites, which it does. Minor residual gaps (error behavior, idempotency when no run is active) keep it from being fully complete for a mutation tool.

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% and the single 'study' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it must be named explicitly. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 study' / 'stop the run in progress') and enumerates the concrete effects: stopping the current run, skipping remaining runs, and restoring changed workspace values. That detail separates it from siblings like cm_study_start, cm_stop_sim, and cm_restore without opening their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit when-not-to-use constraint: 'Only cancel a study this conversation started,' which prevents misuse against studies owned by another session. It does not, however, route the agent to an alternative (e.g. cm_stop_sim or cm_revert_all) for cases outside that condition, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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