Cancel an in-progress chat session by session ID to stop response generation or streaming output.
Interrompe a execucao ou streaming de resposta de uma sessao em andamento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | Identificador da sessao a cancelar | |
| session_id | No | Alias de session para compatibilidade |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool interrupts execution or streaming of an ongoing session, but it omits important behavior such as idempotency, permissions, what happens to partial output, and post-cancellation state.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to stating the action and its target.
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 low-complexity cancellation tool with only two optional string parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core action. However, because there are no annotations and the tool is a mutating operation, it is only minimally complete and leaves behavioral details unstated.
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 already explains both 'session' and 'session_id' as an alias. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline of 3.
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 a specific verb+resource: interrupt the execution or response streaming of an ongoing session. It is clearly a cancellation tool and distinguishable from sibling tools such as list_chat_sessions and chat_bridge_status, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 the phrase 'sessao em andamento': call it to cancel an active session. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of which sibling tool to use instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.