Cancel queued pipeline nodes and terminate owned process trees for a run, then poll state until active nodes settle. External side effects already started are not rolled back.
Cancel queued nodes and terminate owned process trees. Already-started external side effects are not automatically rolled back. Poll state until active nodes settle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | ||
| deviceId | No | ||
| deviceName | No | ||
| confirmInterrupted | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies the scope ('owned process trees') and warns that 'Already-started external side effects are not automatically rolled back' and that active nodes settle asynchronously.
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, front-loaded sentences that each carry distinct information: the action, the rollback caveat, and the settling behavior. No filler.
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 destructive mutation with annotations covering safety, the description discloses the key non-obvious traits (no rollback, eventual settling). However, with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the parameters remain entirely undocumented, which is a notable gap for a 4-param tool.
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% across 4 parameters (runId, deviceId, deviceName, confirmInterrupted), yet the description explains none of them. It doesn't clarify what runId identifies, when deviceId/deviceName are needed, or what confirmInterrupted gates — leaving the entire param surface undocumented.
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+resource: 'Cancel queued nodes and terminate owned process trees.' Clear within the dev_pipeline family that this is the cancellation tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives like force_terminate or dev_pipeline_wait, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
'Poll state until active nodes settle' gives an implied follow-up workflow (poll dev_pipeline_status), but the description never states when to use this vs dev_pipeline_wait or force_terminate, nor any preconditions for cancellation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.