Skip to main content
Glama

Surfing Dog Inbox

by ai.surfingdog
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Decline what the business proposed

decline_offer
DestructiveIdempotent

Say no to another time or to changes the business proposed (the booking request or the order is closed) or to its quote. To a change it asks for to a confirmed booking or an accepted order, no keeps what was agreed; on a change your person asked for (requested_change), it takes that back. Add reason (and reason_code) for anything your person wants the business to know.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoThe person's key (sdkey1_…), if that is all you have: it is exchanged once for a pass, which comes back in identity.passes — keep the pass and send it next time instead. Never stored.
passNoThe person's passes (sdpass1_…), space-separated, at most 8: presented to the network that issued each, so the business recognises the customer. Or send them in the Sdi-Pass header. Never stored.
reasonNoAnything your person wants the business to know.
item_idYes
offer_idNoThe offer you answer: offer.id from get_item_status. If the business has replaced it since, nothing is done (409 offer_changed, with the current one).
reason_codeNoWhy: price_sensitivity, timing_deferred, quantity, delivery, returns_policy or other.
access_tokenNoCapability secret returned when the item was created without an account.
idempotency_keyNoSame key + same request = same answer. Required for agents.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / offer_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The offer you answer: offer.id from get_item_status. If the business has replaced it since, nothing is done (409 offer_changed, with the current one).",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason_code
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Why: price_sensitivity, timing_deferred, quantity, delivery, returns_policy or other.",
+  "enum": [
+    "price_sensitivity",
+    "timing_deferred",
+    "quantity",
+    "delivery",
+    "returns_policy",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by spelling out the consequence in each branch: declining a business-proposed change closes the booking request/order, declining a change to a confirmed booking/order keeps what was agreed, and declining on a requested_change retracts it. That is meaningful state-consequence disclosure. It does not cover auth or error behavior, which the schema partially carries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the sentences are dense strings of parenthetical clauses ('no keeps what was agreed', 'on a change your person asked for (requested_change), it takes that back') that are hard to parse on first read. No sentence is wasted, but the phrasing is not clean.

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 destructive, multi-state mutation with no output schema, the description covers the branching outcomes well and the annotations declare the safety profile. It is slightly short on what a successful call returns or how the closed/retracted states surface to the caller, but otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents item_id, offer_id, key, pass, access_token, idempotency_key, reason and reason_code. The description only adds a light steer on reason/reason_code ('for anything your person wants to know') and says nothing about item_id vs offer_id selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('decline'/'say no') and enumerates the resources it applies to: a proposed time, business-proposed changes, and a quote. It is clearly the negative counterpart to accept_offer, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent infers the pairing rather than being told.

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?

Gives concrete situations in which to decline (another time, business-proposed change, quote, taking back a person-requested change), which is solid usage context. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming accept_offer as the alternative path, so it is clear-but-not-complete.

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

All Surfing Dog Inbox toolsInspect
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