Cancel a previously set single-shot timer by its ID to stop its execution. Returns a boolean indicating whether the timer was successfully cleared.
sys_Timer.clearTimeoutTimer(id: string) -> boolean 清除指定单次定时器 returns: 定时器是否清除成功
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (boolean) and that the timer is cleared, but doesn't disclose what happens if the timer doesn't exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether any side effects occur. The description adds minimal behavior beyond the signature.
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 compact—two sentences plus a return line—and front-loads the action. No unnecessary filler, though the signature line somewhat duplicates the tool name.
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 timer-clearing tool with a sibling set-timeout tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to obtain the timer id, what 'clear success' means in practical terms, or how this interacts with the windowId parameter. The description is minimal enough that an agent could call it without fully understanding the behavior.
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 100%, so the schema documents the parameters. The description mentions '指定' (specified) and 'id: string' in the signature, which aligns with the args array, but the description doesn't add much beyond the schema. The windowId parameter is documented in the schema.
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 states '清除指定单次定时器' (clear the specified one-shot timer), which identifies the resource and action. However, it doesn't mention the 'boolean' return beyond the signature and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like eda_sys_timer_clear_interval_timer beyond the '单次' vs 'interval' distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include eda_sys_timer_set_timeout_timer and eda_sys_timer_set_interval_timer, and the description doesn't clarify that this clears a timeout timer specifically, nor when an agent should choose it over eda_sys_timer_clear_interval_timer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.