Cancel a queued print job by ID before it starts. If the job is already printing, use stop_print instead.
Remove a queued job. For a job already printing use stop_print.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that the job is removed. It does not say whether the removal is reversible, whether it requires confirmation, what error results if the job is already dispatched/printing, or what permissions are needed for this mutation.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the disambiguation rule. No filler, and the most decision-relevant clause comes first.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action and the key alternative but leaves the parameter's provenance and the mutation's failure/reversibility behavior unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need filled.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for job_id, but it only implies the job is queued. It never states the parameter's format or origin (e.g., an id obtainable from queue_list), leaving a required parameter effectively undocumented.
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 and resource ('Remove a queued job') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling stop_print by the job's state (queued vs. already printing). An agent can place this against queue_list, queue_dispatch, and stop_print without opening any schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-not condition ('For a job already printing') paired with the alternative to use instead ('use stop_print'). That is the exact routing decision an agent needs for this family of print-control siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.