Cancel a running AVL analysis job by job ID. Stops the worker and owned AVL process while preserving completed cases and logs, so you can query status until cancellation is acknowledged.
Request cooperative cancellation of this job's worker and its owned AVL process. Completed cases and logs remain. Query status until cancellation is acknowledged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them, adding that completed cases and logs remain. It also discloses the cooperative/asynchronous nature by instructing the agent to poll status until acknowledgement. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences each add distinct value: the action, the preserved artifacts, and the follow-up. It is front-loaded with the main verb and target, and has no fluff.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with annotations, the description covers the action, side effects, and the need to poll status. It does not specify the response shape or error cases, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the status-polling instruction.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only lists job_id as required. The description clarifies that the parameter identifies the job whose worker and AVL process are cancelled ('this job's worker'), but it does not elaborate on format, validation, or accepted values. It partially compensates for the schema gap.
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?
Description states a clear action ('Request cooperative cancellation') and the target ('this job's worker and its owned AVL process'). It is distinct from read-only siblings like avl.health or avl.status, but it does not explicitly contrast with avl.resume or avl.sweep, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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 implies the tool is for cancelling a job but never states when to choose it over avl.resume or avl.sweep, nor when cancellation is appropriate. It does provide a follow-up instruction ('Query status until cancellation is acknowledged'), which is a mild usage hint, but the when-vs-alternatives guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.