Cancel a queued or running async simulation job by ID to halt execution and return its terminal status.
Cancel a queued or running async simulation job by id. Use this for queued or running jobs; list_jobs shows their states. Returns the updated job record with its terminal status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | UUID of the async job |
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, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the job must be queued or running and that it returns the updated job record with its terminal status, plus identifies the job type as an async simulation job. No contradiction; return-value and scope details go beyond the annotation hints.
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 sentences with no waste: the first states the core action, the second adds usage guidance and return value. The main purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 destructive action with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers when to use it, what it returns, and the job type. It doesn't specify behavior for already-terminal jobs, but that's inferable from 'queued or running' and the availability of list_jobs for checking state.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for job_id ('UUID of the async job'), and the description only adds 'by id,' which is redundant. No additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (cancel), resource (queued or running async simulation job), and method (by id). It clearly differentiates from siblings like submit_job, list_jobs, and get_job_status by naming the cancel operation and the job type.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this for queued or running jobs; list_jobs shows their states,' giving both the condition for use and the tool to check job state. This orients the agent within the job lifecycle without leaving inference to chance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.