cancel_uploadStops an unfinished upload job and preserves it so it can be resumed later, letting you pause or halt a video upload without losing progress.
Stop an upload job that has not finished. It can be resumed later with resume_upload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully corroborates the non-destructive profile by noting the job can be resumed later. Beyond that it says nothing about the state of the upload after cancellation (bytes discarded vs. retained), what happens if the job is already complete, or whether an error or idempotent response is returned.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the precondition is front-loaded before the pointer to the alternative tool. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, so the bar is low, and the description covers purpose and the resume path adequately. It is still incomplete on identifier provenance and on error behavior for already-finished jobs, both of which an agent would need to call it reliably.
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?
There is a single parameter, job_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains where an agent obtains a job id. For a required identifier whose provenance (list_uploads? upload_video? get_upload_status?) matters for correct invocation, this is a meaningful omission.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Stop an upload job") plus a state precondition ("that has not finished"), which distinguishes it from a general delete or status tool. It names the resume_upload sibling, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the other upload-related siblings such as list_uploads or get_upload_status.
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 states the condition that selects this tool (an unfinished upload job) and points to resume_upload for the reverse operation, giving an explicit alternative. It does not say what to do if the job has already finished or failed, which is a residual gap but not a blocking one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.