arsenkin_cancelRequest cancellation of a queued or running SEO job when a user aborts. Note that already spent limits may not return.
Request cancellation of your queued/running job. Use when the user aborts; already spent limits may not return.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive, non-read-only, idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: "Request cancellation" signals it is a request rather than an immediate guaranteed kill, and "already spent limits may not return" discloses a real cost consequence of the destructive action.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded and the caveat following. Every clause 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers trigger, scope, and side-effect caveat, leaving only the origin/format of job_id unaddressed.
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 nothing to compensate: job_id is never explained, nor how it is obtained (e.g. from prepare/submit). With one undocumented parameter, the description leaves the only input's semantics entirely to inference.
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?
"Request cancellation of your queued/running job" names a specific verb (cancel) and resource (job), and scopes it to queued/running jobs. It is unambiguous against siblings like submit/status/get_result, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative it could be confused with.
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?
"Use when the user aborts" gives a clear triggering condition for invocation. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to a sibling (e.g. status/limits) for checking state first, so it's clear context without full exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.