cancel_feasibility_requestWithdraw a pending feasibility request. A request already answered cannot be cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | ||
| organization_id | No | Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | The withdrawn feasibility request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / organization_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / request_id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / result / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +{}Output schema / properties / result / properties / cancelled_at / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/responded_at"Output schema / properties / result / properties / cancelled_at / descriptionAdded value: +"ISO 8601 timestamp."Output schema / properties / result / properties / cancelled_at / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / estimated_timeline_hours / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/estimated_total_cost_per_interview_usd"Output schema / properties / result / properties / estimated_timeline_hours / typeAdded value: +[
+ "number",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / estimated_total_cost_usd / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/estimated_total_cost_per_interview_usd"Output schema / properties / result / properties / estimated_total_cost_usd / typeAdded value: +[
+ "number",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / expected_response_by / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/responded_at"Output schema / properties / result / properties / expected_response_by / descriptionAdded value: +"ISO 8601 timestamp."Output schema / properties / result / properties / expected_response_by / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / target / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Output schema / properties / result / properties / target / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds the state-machine constraint (cannot cancel an answered request), which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about reversibility, resulting state, or error behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Purpose plus the pending-only constraint is largely sufficient for a single-required-param cancel operation, though failure modes are left implicit.
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 description coverage is 50%: organization_id is documented in-schema while request_id relies on its uuid format/pattern. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the baseline for mid coverage.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Withdraw a pending feasibility request'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like submit_feasibility_request and get_feasibility_request. It is clear without naming those alternatives explicitly, so it lands just short of a 5.
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?
It supplies a real precondition — only pending requests can be cancelled; an answered request cannot — which tells the agent when this tool will fail. It does not, however, point the agent at alternatives such as get_feasibility_request to verify status first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.