devin_cancelStop an existing Devin job by job ID and return its cancellation or terminal state. Changes already made in the working directory are preserved.
Stop an existing Devin job and return its cancellation or existing terminal state. Cancellation preserves changes already made in the working directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job identifier returned by devin_run. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those: that cancellation preserves changes already in the working directory, which softens the destructive implication, and that it returns the cancellation or existing terminal state, explaining the idempotent behavior.
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 sentences, zero waste, and the core action-plus-outcome is front-loaded before the side-effect note. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description responsibly covers the return value ('cancellation or existing terminal state'). For a one-parameter, low-complexity tool this is nearly complete, though it could note whether calling on an already-terminal job errors or silently succeeds.
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% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented as 'Job identifier returned by devin_run.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Stop an existing Devin job') and clarifies the outcome. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings devin_run and devin_wait, which start and poll a job respectively.
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 'Stop an existing Devin job', which tells the agent this is for terminating a running job. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or routing to an alternative, and no prerequisites are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.