Cancels an active bounce, stops recording, restores transport and arm states, and removes temporary [bounce] tracks; also deletes leftover [bounce] tracks when none is running.
Cancel a running bounce: recording stops, transport and arm states are restored, and the temporary "[bounce]" tracks are removed. With no bounce running, removes leftover "[bounce]" tracks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only convey the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that — that recording halts, transport and arm states are restored, and that temporary '[bounce]' tracks are deleted. This also explains why destructiveHint=false is accurate (only temporary bounce tracks are removed) and why the operation is idempotent (the no-bounce branch still cleans up).
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 tightly written sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then the fallback behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed: both execution branches and the state restoration side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly implies a parameterless, single-action operation.
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 ('Cancel') and resource ('a running bounce') and immediately enumerates the concrete effects (recording stops, transport/arm states restored, temp tracks removed). It is unmistakably the counterpart to the sibling 'bounce' tool, so an agent can distinguish them without opening a schema.
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?
It covers both states explicitly: cancel while a bounce runs, and clean up leftover '[bounce]' tracks when none is running, which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming an alternative or a precondition (e.g., checking get_bounce_status first), so it is not full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.