Cancel a running Kratos simulation job by sending SIGTERM to the whole process group, then SIGKILL after a grace period so every MPI rank stops.
Cancel a running simulation job (SIGTERM, escalating to SIGKILL after a grace period). Signals the whole process group, so every MPI rank is stopped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers unusually strong detail: SIGTERM escalating to SIGKILL after a grace period, and signalling of the entire process group so all MPI ranks stop. It does not cover permissions/auth or what happens if the job is already finished, but the termination mechanism and blast radius are clearly disclosed.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operational details. No redundant restatement of the name or schema.
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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral facts an agent needs. It could add whether cancellation is idempotent or what happens on an already-terminal job, but nothing critical is 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single job_id parameter, so the description technically must compensate; however, job_id is self-explanatory as an identifier and the description adds no format, source, or origin details for it. Minimum-viable semantics.
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 and resource ('Cancel a running simulation job') and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling cancel tools such as study_cancel by scoping to simulation jobs. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as job_resume or study_cancel. The reader must infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.