Skip to main content
Glama

Cancel request

cancel_request
DestructiveIdempotent

Cancels a request. This cannot be undone. For a real request, open offers are withdrawn and the businesses that bid are notified; a demo request notifies no one. Intended for when the customer asks to cancel.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>",
      "access_key": "<access_key>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional reason from the customer.
access_keyYesaccess_key returned by create_request in this conversation.
request_idYesrequest_id returned by create_request, e.g. req_4d5d004f0c66.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: 'This cannot be undone' and details the side effects (withdraws open offers, notifies bidders, demo requests notify no one). This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations don't capture.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequence, followed by side-effect details and intended use. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description adds the irreversibility and side-effect disclosure that an agent needs to avoid misuse. Nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including the optional reason. The description doesn't add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (cancels) and resource (request), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it's a terminal operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_request or get_request_status, which might be confused by an agent looking to modify a request.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Intended for when the customer asks to cancel.' This tells the agent the triggering condition. But it doesn't mention when NOT to use it (e.g., use update_request for modifications instead), 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources