RelayLink

Cancel a draft

cancel_draft

DestructiveIdempotent

Discard a pending draft that the user decided not to send.

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": {
      "draftId": "<draftId>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draftId`	Yes	The draft_id to discard.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and "Discard" is consistent with that. The description adds nothing further — no statement on irreversibility, no behavior when the draftId is unknown or already cancelled, which is exactly the context the annotations don't supply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the intent and object of the operation come first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, low-complexity tool whose annotations already carry the destructive/idempotent profile, this is nearly sufficient. The only real omission is how to obtain a valid draftId and whether cancellation is reversible.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains draftId. The description adds no format, sourcing (where to obtain the draft_id), or validation semantics beyond the structured field.

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 and resource ("Discard a pending draft") and adds a scope qualifier ("that the user decided not to send"). It does not name or distinguish itself from related siblings like list_drafts or draft_package, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"that the user decided not to send" implies the triggering condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisite (must the draft exist?), and no pointer to list_drafts for finding the draftId first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

All RelayLink tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?