Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
errorbar

errorbar

by omnia-v
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

cancel fine tuning job

cancel_fine_tuning_job
DestructiveIdempotent

Stop a queued or running fine-tuning job to halt training and prevent further usage charges. The cancellation is final even if the backend lags.

Instructions

Cancel a queued or running fine-tuning job so no more training is metered — the customer's cancel is authoritative even if the backend lags. DELETE /v1/fine_tuning/jobs/{id} (API-key scope: platform:write). Returns: 200 {ok:true}. The job's status becomes CANCELLED (idempotent: cancelling an already-CANCELLED job also returns 200 {ok:true}). Notes: This is a CANCEL, not a delete — the job record remains listed. Requires OWNER/ADMIN minting user (403). 404 when not in this workspace. 400 "This run already finished — there is nothing to cancel." for SUCCEEDED or FAILED jobs. The backend cancel is attempted but a backend error does not block the local cancel; metering treats local CANCELLED as final and finalizes at $0 further spend. Feature-flag gated (404 when fineTuning is off). Scopes not enforced on this route today.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_fine_tuning_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe job id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive, and the description adds substantial context: metering stops, status becomes CANCELLED, cancel is authoritative despite backend lag, backend errors do not block local cancel, permissions require OWNER/ADMIN minting user, 404/400 cases, feature-flag gating, and scopes not enforced. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and consequence, then organized caveats (return, status, errors, permissions, backend behavior). The length is justified because every sentence adds an operationally relevant detail for a cancellation endpoint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: full HTTP semantics, success response, failure modes, auth context, idempotency, backend behavior, and feature-flag behavior. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'The job id.' The description references {id} in the DELETE path but does not add much semantic detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a queued or running fine-tuning job'), includes the HTTP path, and explicitly distinguishes this from deletion ('This is a CANCEL, not a delete — the job record remains listed'). It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like cancel_batch or delete_alias.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit conditions for use: queued or running jobs, and when-not: SUCCEEDED or FAILED jobs return 400, while already-CANCELLED jobs are idempotent. It also clarifies it is not a delete operation, which is the main alternative behavior an agent might confuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools