Skip to main content
Glama

Surfing Dog Inbox

Withdraw from contract here

withdraw_from_contract
DestructiveIdempotent

Your person withdraws from their booking (one they paid for) or order, within the period the business states (withdrawal on get_item_status). Two steps: without confirm_withdrawal nothing is sent and you get the statement to show them (confirm.statement); send confirm_withdrawal: true on their yes. Before the goods went out the order ends and what was paid is refunded; once they reached your person, the goods come back (lines: only some of them) and are refunded. The business emails a copy. Never refused: past the period, or for something that cannot be returned, it goes to a person there instead (passed_on), or becomes a return under the business's own policy.

Input 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.
noteNoAnything your person wants to tell the business.
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.
linesNoOnce the goods reached them: only these lines (by index in the order's orderedItem), and how many of each.
item_idYes
access_tokenNoCapability secret returned when the item was created without an account.
idempotency_keyNoSame key + same request = same answer. Required for agents. Make it a fresh random UUID per request: a retry of a create with a random key gets its access token again.
confirm_withdrawalNotrue once your person confirmed the statement you were shown. Left out, nothing is sent: you get the statement.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Same key + same request = same answer. Required for agents."New value: +"Same key + same request = same answer. Required for agents. Make it a fresh random UUID per request: a retry of a create with a random key gets its access token again."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: no request is sent without confirm_withdrawal, the first call returns a statement to show the person, refunds happen before shipment, goods must come back after receipt, and partial lines are supported. This matches the destructive and idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and two-step flow, and every sentence carries operational meaning. It is somewhat dense and can be hard to parse in one pass, but it is appropriately sized for a destructive multi-step workflow.

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 complex destructive tool with no output schema, it covers the critical flow, confirmation requirement, refund behavior, partial-line handling, and fallback outcomes. It does not fully document the response shape, but it gives enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is high at 88%, so most parameter meaning is already documented. The description still adds useful semantics for confirm_withdrawal and lines, explaining the confirmation gate and that line quantities apply only after goods reached the person.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: a person withdraws from a paid booking or order. It distinguishes the process from a business-policy return by mentioning that some cases become a return or are passed on, though it does not name sibling tools like request_return explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It clearly explains when to use the tool: within the business-stated withdrawal period, after checking get_item_status, and with a two-step confirmation flow. It also states when-not cases past the period or non-returnable items and describes the alternative outcomes passed_on or business-policy return.

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.