meah_cancel_agentAbort a queued or running worker to halt its provider request and child processes, moving it to cancelled state. Optionally clean up its workspace.
Abort a queued or running worker: the provider request and any child process are aborted and the worker moves to state "cancelled". Optionally removes its workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| workerId | Yes | ||
| cleanupWorkspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes beyond them by specifying what is actually aborted (provider request and child process), the terminal state, and the optional workspace removal. It still omits irreversibility and auth/permission requirements.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequence; no filler or redundancy.
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 destructive mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers consequences and state transition adequately. Only the purpose of 'reason' and edge cases (idempotency, already-cancelled workers) are missing.
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%, so the description carries the param burden. It explains cleanupWorkspace's effect well ('optionally removes its workspace'), but the 'reason' parameter is never mentioned and workerId is only implied by context.
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 (abort) and resource (queued or running worker) plus the resulting state, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling meah_cleanup_workspace, despite overlapping workspace-removal behavior.
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 only implied via the state constraint (queued or running worker), which does tell the agent when the tool is applicable. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over meah_cleanup_workspace or what to do for already-finished workers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.