Skip to main content
Glama
boinc-central-mcp
by ispacex

abort_batch

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel every job without a result in a BOINC Central batch and set it to aborted; requires explicit confirmation and cannot be undone.

Instructions

DESTRUCTIVE: abort the batch on BOINC Central: every job without a result is cancelled (unsent instances dropped) and the batch goes to state "aborted". Cannot be undone. Call only when the user explicitly asked to abort this batch, and pass confirm=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "batch_id": "<batch_id>"
    },
    "name": "abort_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
batch_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructive, but the description goes further and says exactly what is destroyed: every job without a result is cancelled, unsent instances are dropped, and the batch transitions to 'aborted'. It also states irreversibility, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Leads with 'DESTRUCTIVE:', then the mechanics, then the irreversibility warning, then the call condition. Four short clauses, each earning its place, no repetition of schema or annotations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a two-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers consequences, reversibility, and the confirmation requirement – everything an agent needs before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It correctly specifies that confirm=true is required to proceed and implies batch_id selects the target batch. The confirm flag's guard-rail role is explained well, though batch_id's type/format is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States the specific verb (abort) and resource (the batch), scopes it to BOINC Central, and makes clear this is not the same as retire_batch or batch_status. The effect is immediately distinguishable from every sibling tool.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Call only when the user explicitly asked to abort this batch, and pass confirm=true.' That is a clear when-to-use plus a hard prerequisite. It does not name the non-destructive alternative (retire_batch), so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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