abort-actor-runAbort a caller-owned Actor run that is starting or running. Terminal runs are unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | Actor run ID to abort. | |
| gracefully | No | Request a graceful abort with the provider timeout. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that only caller-owned, non-terminal runs are affected and that terminal runs remain unchanged. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key state and ownership constraints, earning every word.
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?
Given the destructive, idempotent annotations and two fully documented parameters, the description captures the essential conditions and scope. A note about response behavior or error cases would add completeness, but nothing critical is missing for 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 100%, with both runId and gracefully documented in the input schema. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully covers the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Abort'), a clear resource ('caller-owned Actor run'), and precise conditions ('starting or running'). It also distinguishes behavior for terminal runs, making the purpose unambiguous even alongside sibling tools like get-actor-run.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for a caller-owned Actor run that is still starting or running. It also excludes terminal runs, which is a helpful boundary. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for terminal runs or checking status, but the guidance is adequate for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most domain tools are well-scoped with explicit cross-references (e.g., FL DBPR vs. STR registry, Texas vs. multistate childcare). However, the evidence-gateway overlaps with EPA, U.S. property, and other specialized tools by describing similar intake categories, creating ambiguity about when to use the router versus the domain-specific tool.
The specialized tools consistently use the civicdataforge-- prefix with descriptive noun phrases, while the generic actor tools use imperative verb_noun style. The naming is readable and predictable within each subgroup, but the mixed conventions and the awkward doubled prefix in civicdataforge--civicdataforge-evidence-gateway prevent full consistency.
Fourteen tools is reasonable for a broad government-evidence server covering many data domains plus an async run lifecycle. The count is not excessive, though the gateway and several overlapping domain-specific tools add some redundancy.
The tool set covers a wide range of evidence domains and provides complete async workflow coverage: launch queries, check run status, fetch dataset items, read KVS records, and abort runs. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit way to enumerate supported jurisdictions or sources, and the gateway's broad categories are underspecified.