Cancel an active download from a specific user by its ID, with an option to remove it from the list.
Cancel a download in progress. Always available, even when downloads are disabled — stopping a transfer only ever reduces activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| remove | No | ||
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful context by noting the operation is always available and 'only ever reduces activity,' but it does not disclose side effects like what happens to partial files or whether cancellation is reversible. The optional 'remove' parameter suggests there may be file-removal behavior that is not explained.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional availability note is compact and relevant.
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?
While an output schema exists and return values may be covered there, the description omits parameter semantics and provides no guidance on the effect of the 'remove' option. The tool is simple, but the missing parameter context and lack of alternative guidance leave the description incomplete for fully correct 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 does not mention any of the three parameters: username, id, or remove. The schema only provides names, types, and a default, so the description adds no meaning to the parameters. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 action ('Cancel') on a specific resource ('a download in progress'), and this clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_status or downloads. The intent is immediately obvious without opening the 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?
The description gives concrete guidance on when the tool is usable: it is 'Always available, even when downloads are disabled.' It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but the availability clarification is genuinely useful context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.