Cancel a currently executing action run by its ID to stop ongoing execution and prevent further processing.
Cancel an action run Cancels an action run which is currently being executed PATCH /abx/api/resources/action-runs/{id}/cancel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the action run (path) | |
| body | Yes | Configuration of the action run |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds the PATCH endpoint and the in-progress state condition, but it does not explain what cancellation does to the run, whether it is immediate, or what permissions are required.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the first two sentences are redundant, repeating that it cancels an action run, which keeps it from being maximally concise.
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 mutation tool with a required nested body and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the body should contain, what the response is, or what happens to a run after cancellation, leaving important call-time context 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?
Top-level schema description coverage is high, so the schema already documents the id and body parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and it does not clarify the large nested body object, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: cancel an action run. It also narrows scope to runs currently being executed. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as delete action run or get action run, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'currently being executed' implies the tool applies only to in-progress runs, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools. Usage is therefore implied rather than clearly instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.