Elicitly Pro

Cancel a pending elicitation

elicit_cancel

Destructive

Withdraw a pending elicitation you created — the plan changed or the request is superseded. The request resolves canceled: a terminal status distinct from declined (the reviewer's explicit no) and expired (nobody decided in time). The review page stops accepting decisions, pending elicit_await calls wake, and elicit_result has no outcome to fetch. Errors if the request was already decided or has expired; a cancel racing a concurrent decision loses cleanly to whichever landed first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`elicitationId`	Yes	The `elicitationId` returned by the creating tool (elicit_approval, elicit_selection, or elicit_proposal).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	The request is now terminally canceled.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / elicitationId / description

Added value: +"The `elicitationId` returned by the creating tool (elicit_approval, elicit_selection, or elicit_proposal)."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "status": {
+      "const": "canceled",
+      "description": "The request is now terminally canceled.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, detailing the terminal `canceled` status, the shutdown of further decisions, waking of pending `elicit_await` calls, the absence of an `elicit_result` outcome, error conditions, and the race behavior. This is rich, accurate behavioral context that an agent needs.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries meaningful operational information. The primary purpose and rationale come first, followed by consequences, edge cases, and concurrency semantics. No filler or 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent operation, the description fully covers what happens, when it fails, how it interacts with related tools, and concurrency behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details are already structured. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter, including its type, required status, and source. The description adds some context by implying the elicitation must be one the user created, but it does not materially enrich the already complete parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Withdraw a pending elicitation you created') and a clear resource. It distinguishes the action from related statuses like `declined` and `expired`, and positions cancellation relative to other elicitation tools without ambiguity.

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?

It clearly describes when to use the tool: when a plan changed or the request is superseded, and only for a pending elicitation the user created. It also implicitly says when not to use it by noting it errors if already decided or expired. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but that is not necessary given the unique cancel semantics.

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

All Elicitly Pro tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct roles in the elicitation lifecycle, but elicit_approval's form mode heavily overlaps with elicit_form, and elicit_confirm is explicitly a wrapper over elicit_form, creating real selection ambiguity. Status, await, result, cancel, and history are clearly separated, so the confusion is limited to a couple of closely related tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the elicit_ prefix and use snake_case, which makes the namespace predictable and easy to scan. However, the second token mixes nouns (approval, form, proposal, status) with verbs (await, cancel, confirm, ping), and elicit_doctor is a non-obvious metaphor, so the pattern is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is within the ideal scope for a specialized elicitation server: creation variants, status polling, blocking wait, result retrieval, cancellation, history, and diagnostic helpers all have a place. The count feels purposeful rather than padded, and it fits the domain without becoming unwieldy.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle is well covered: agents can create varied elicitations, check status, block on decisions, fetch results, cancel pending requests, and review history, plus diagnostic and connectivity tools. The main gap is the inability to update or extend a pending elicitation after creation, but agents can work around this by canceling and recreating.

Resources

Need Help?