Stops an ongoing image conversion batch by its batch ID and keeps any files already converted, so partial work is preserved.
Stops a batch. What has already been converted stays. Example: {"id": "l-1"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id that empezar_lote gave, like “l-3”. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — "what has already been converted stays" — telling the agent this is a partial rollback rather than a full purge. It stops short of saying what happens to queued, unconverted items.
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?
Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the effect statement and the example each carry weight. It is arguably a touch under-specified rather than wordy.
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 mutation with no output schema, the key missing piece is the status of the unfinished portion of the batch and any error condition (unknown id, already-completed batch). Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves an agent guessing about post-cancel 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that the id comes from empezar_lote with the “l-3” format. The inline example {"id": "l-1"} restates that format rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
"Stops a batch" names a specific verb and resource, and the partial-effect note makes clear what cancellation means here. It is distinguishable from empezar_lote and ver_lote by verb alone, though it never names them.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this to stop a running batch. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of empezar_lote (which produces the id) or ver_lote as an alternative for inspection, and no statement about what happens if the batch already finished.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.