yorai_cancel_jobCancel a queued job and release its credit hold; running jobs cannot be cancelled.
Cancel a queued job and release its credit hold. Running jobs cannot be cancelled (409).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the state mutation, the credit-hold release side effect, and the 409 failure mode for running jobs. It omits idempotency behavior (what happens if the job is already cancelled or completed) and what the call returns.
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 primary action plus its side effect is front-loaded before the constraint. Every clause carries 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?
For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraint, and error code, but never says what a successful cancellation returns or how to interpret the result. The single parameter is also left unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given 0% schema coverage.
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 coverage is 0% — the single `id` parameter has no description at all. The description implies the id identifies 'a queued job' but never states the identifier type, format, or where an agent obtains it, leaving the only parameter under-specified.
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 ('Cancel') and resource ('a queued job') plus the side effect ('release its credit hold'), which no sibling tool does. An agent can immediately distinguish it from yorai_create_job, yorai_get_job, and yorai_list_jobs.
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?
Explicitly bounds usage to queued jobs and names the when-not case ('Running jobs cannot be cancelled') with the resulting status code 409. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or describing prerequisites (auth/ownership), but there is no real sibling alternative for cancellation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.