Clear all pending queued generation jobs to stop background rendering and prevent unwanted media output.
Clear all pending queued generation jobs.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "autoflow_clear_queue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states what is cleared but does not disclose that the action is destructive/irreversible, whether only queued jobs are affected, or what happens to in-progress jobs. This is a significant gap for a clearing operation.
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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential action and scope efficiently.
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 tool the description is minimal but arguably sufficient to understand the basic action. However, with no annotations and no mention of irreversibility, confirmation behavior, or relationship to sibling tools like autoflow_cancel, it leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right destructive 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to explain. The description still adds value by specifying the scope of the operation ('all pending queued generation jobs'), which is the relevant semantic content.
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 uses a direct verb (Clear) with a specific resource (all pending queued generation jobs). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like autoflow_get_queue (viewing) and autoflow_generate (creating) by stating the scope of the action.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as autoflow_cancel or autoflow_get_queue. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any decision criteria for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.