Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wiro MCP Server

Wiro MCP Server

Official
by wiroai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Stop a Wiro task

kill_task
DestructiveIdempotent

Stop an unfinished model task by task ID or token; queued tasks cancel without charge, while already-running tasks may still incur a charge after the run ends.

Instructions

Stop a model task that has not finished. A queued task is cancelled and never charged. A task that was already running can still be charged for its run, and get_task_price shows any charge once the run ends. If the task finished first, the call is refused with "Process ended": read it with get_task and show the result. Not for the steps of a workflow run or the runs Studio starts.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskidNoThe task ID (alternative to tasktoken).
tasktokenNoThe task token returned from run_model.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYes
actionYes
messageYes
successYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.3
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / taskid
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The task ID (alternative to tasktoken).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / tasktoken / description
      Previous value: -"The task token to kill"New value: +"The task token returned from run_model."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "tasktoken"
-]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "enum": [
+        "cancel",
+        "kill"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "task": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "token": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "action",
+    "success",
+    "task",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv1.1.4

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining billing consequences (queued = never charged, running = chargeable), and by naming the exact refusal error "Process ended" with the recommended recovery path. This is precisely the kind of context that annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then state-specific consequences, then the failure case, then scope exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations already declare the destructive/idempotent profile. The description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: billing implications, partial-failure semantics, and scope boundaries.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both taskid and tasktoken are already documented as alternatives in the schema. The description adds nothing about which identifier to prefer or what happens if both/neither are supplied (0 required params), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Stop a model task") and explicitly bounds the scope to tasks that have not finished. It excludes workflow steps and Studio runs, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cancel_task, which appears to target a very similar action — that ambiguity costs it the top band.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage conditions per state: queued tasks are cancelled without charge, running tasks may still be charged, and already-finished tasks are refused. It also routes the agent to get_task and get_task_price for follow-up. Missing only an explicit statement of when to prefer this over cancel_task.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools