cancel_scheduleCancela uma entrega agendada pelo seu schedule_id (obtido em list_schedules ou schedule).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner_phone | No | Numero do dono (so digitos, como texto ou numero). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless). | |
| schedule_id | Yes | ID do schedule a cancelar. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / owner_phone / descriptionPrevious value: -"Numero do dono (so digitos). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless)."New value: +"Numero do dono (so digitos, como texto ou numero). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless)."Input schema / properties / owner_phoneAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Numero do dono (so digitos). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. Description adds that the tool cancels a scheduled delivery and hints at a side effect regarding owner_phone for reactivation, which is beyond annotation info.
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?
Single straightforward sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action and resource.
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 cancel operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does and where to get the ID. Could mention irreversibility but not essential.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. Description only references schedule_id in context, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'cancel' and the resource 'schedule' (scheduled delivery), and specifies how to obtain the ID from list_schedules or schedule, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create or list schedules.
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?
Description explicitly says when to use (with a schedule_id from list_schedules or schedule), but does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives beyond those sources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.