fvs_cancel_renderCancel a Future Video Studio render job.
Provide either `project_id` or the full `cancel_url` returned by
fvs_submit_render.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cancel_url | No | ||
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / api_keyRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Api Key"
-}Input schema / properties / base_urlRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Base Url"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the destructive nature (destructiveHint=true). The description adds context beyond this by specifying the two valid identifiers and that cancel_url comes from fvs_submit_render, which is useful for the agent. It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.
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, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence provides essential parameter guidance without any wasted words.
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 simple 2-parameter cancel tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers how to identify the job and references the submission tool for obtaining cancel_url. It does not address edge cases (e.g., both parameters provided, already-cancelled jobs), but these are not critical for basic usage.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains that cancel_url and project_id are alternatives and that cancel_url is the full URL returned by fvs_submit_render. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it omits details like project_id format or behavior when both are provided.
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 the exact action ('Cancel a Future Video Studio render job') using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fvs_get_render_status or fvs_download_final_video.
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 explains how to invoke the tool by providing either project_id or the full cancel_url from fvs_submit_render, giving clear context and a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
The two submit-like tools (fvs_submit_render vs fvs_create_paid_render_quote) and two status tools (fvs_get_render_status vs fvs_get_paid_render_status) could be confused, but their descriptions clearly distinguish by payment mode and required identifiers. The remaining tools have distinct purposes.
All tools share the 'fvs_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., cancel_render, get_render_status, submit_render). The one outlier is 'fvs_example_render_request', which is a noun phrase rather than verb-first, but the overall pattern remains predictable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a video rendering service, covering submission, status checking, cancellation, download, example generation, and a UI opener without unnecessary bloat. This falls comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range.
The standard render lifecycle (submit, status, cancel, download) is fully covered, and the paid quote path is also supported. The main gap is the lack of a tool to list existing renders or projects, which would help agents manage multiple jobs, but this is a minor omission.