Remove a queued task by ID and payload hash. Running tasks remain active and are marked as already running.
queuedのtaskだけ取り消す。runningはcancelled=False(already_running)で、停止はしない。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| payload_sha256 | Yes |
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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that it does not stop running tasks and sets cancelled=False for them, which is important non-obvious behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return values.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential nuance about running tasks. Excellent structure.
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?
The description explains the core queued/running behavior but omits parameter semantics and does not describe success/failure outcomes or any prerequisites. With two required parameters and no annotations or output schema, this is incomplete for reliable invocation.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of task_id or payload_sha256. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them.
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 clearly states the tool cancels only queued tasks, and explicitly distinguishes running tasks by noting they get cancelled=False and are not stopped. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from siblings submit and read.
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?
The description gives clear usage context: it is for queued tasks only, and running tasks are not affected. It implies when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools. The condition is specific and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.