Stop a running task that hangs or goes off track by terminating its worker process tree, marking it interrupted, and preserving partial output for later resumption.
中断一个 running 任务：kill 其 worker 子进程树（Windows 走 taskkill /T /F，Unix 走 SIGTERM→SIGKILL），并把任务置 interrupted 态（保留中断前部分输出 + session_id，供 task_resume 续接）。仅 running 态可中断；终态任务拒绝。适合长任务卡死/跑偏时人工叫停。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | 发起中断者标识（默认 user） | |
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is exceptionally transparent. It discloses the precise kill mechanism per OS, the transition to interrupted state, preservation of partial output and session_id, and the running-state requirement. This provides deep behavioral insight beyond a generic 'interrupts a task' statement.
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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every clause adds operational value: mechanism, state change, preserved data, constraints, and use case. There is no filler and no repetition of schema information.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what happens, how it happens, when to use it, and the constraints that govern valid invocations. The only omission is an explicit return value, but that is not essential for correct invocation and no output schema exists to document it.
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 50%: only the 'by' parameter has a description. The tool description indirectly clarifies task_id by stating the task must be currently running and terminal tasks are rejected, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly map parameters to these constraints or add any new meaning to 'by' beyond the schema, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented task_id.
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 opens with '中断一个 running 任务' (interrupt a running task), then specifies the exact mechanism (kill worker subprocess tree via taskkill /T /F on Windows or SIGTERM→SIGKILL on Unix) and the resulting state (interrupted, preserving partial output and session_id for task_resume). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like task_fail or task_complete by emphasizing interruption and resumability.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool ('适合长任务卡死/跑偏时人工叫停' – suitable for manually stopping long tasks that are stuck or off-track) and provides the key constraint that only running tasks can be interrupted while terminal-state tasks are rejected. It mentions task_resume as the continuation path but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like task_fail for cases where resumption is not desired.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.