cancel_indexing_requestCancels an open indexing request by removing it from the queue so the extension never performs it; closed requests cannot be canceled.
Takes an open indexing request out of the queue, so the extension never performs it. The page stays in IndexMachine. A closed request cannot be canceled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | The indexing request's id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the crucial nuance that only the queued request is destroyed while the page itself stays in IndexMachine, which meaningfully reframes the destructive flag. It also discloses the state precondition (closed requests are not cancelable). It does not describe the error behavior or return value on success.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the primary effect front-loaded and the precondition and side-effect note following in priority order.
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 single-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, scope, and precondition adequately. The only meaningful gap is what happens when the request is closed (error vs no-op), which matters for a cancel operation.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents request_id fully; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the id format or how to obtain a valid request id (e.g., from list_indexing_requests).
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 (indexing request) plus the precise mechanism: it removes the request from the queue so the extension never performs it. That is clearly separable from the sibling read tools (get_indexing_request, list_indexing_requests) and from request_indexing.
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?
Gives a concrete applicability condition — only open requests can be canceled, a closed request cannot — which tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use get_indexing_request to check state first), so not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.