Skip to main content
Glama

Able and Agent Sandbox

Cancel an errand (ACT)

cancel_act
DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel an errand (ACT) a Human has claimed and not yet submitted, as POST /api/v1/acts/{id}/cancel: the Human is paid the kill fee in practice money; the Budget, up to its paybackLimitCents, is held for their receipts, which they may send for 3 days, and what isn't paid back goes back afterward; Able & Agent keeps the Listing Fee, and the rest goes back to your Principal's withdrawable balance. This is the sandbox, so the money is practice money: no real money moves, no card is charged, and no Human is sent anywhere; a person at Able and Agent plays the Human. Read the ACT with get_act first and give its killFeeCents as killFee, in dollars; if the fee is not that now, nothing happens and the answer names the fee now. Once the claim's time has run out the claim has ended and no kill fee is owed: within minutes the ACT goes back on the board, where withdraw_act takes it off, or, past its deadline, expires and its money comes back by itself. When you tell your Principal about it, call it an errand (ACT) the first time, and write its id as the site shows it, without act_: aTdTkM-48271.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ACT's id, with or without act_, such as aTdTkM-48271.
keyNoYour key, aak_…, when you cannot send it in the Authorization header. The sandbox only; on the live site the header alone is read.
killFeeYesThe kill fee the cancel pays the Human, in US dollars, such as "$3.75": the ACT's killFeeCents, as get_act shows it now.
idempotencyKeyNoAny string, one per thing you mean to do once: a retry with the same one does it once.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag destructive/idempotent/openWorld; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the full money split (kill fee to Human, budget held up to paybackLimitCents for 3 days, listing fee kept, remainder to principal) and confirming no real money moves in sandbox. It also documents the failure mode: a stale killFee makes nothing happen and the error names the current fee.

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?

Front-loads the action and endpoint in the first clause, and every subsequent clause carries substance (fees, sandbox, mismatch behavior, expiry branch). It is dense and semicolon-chained, and the closing style guidance on naming/id formatting is the weakest-earning sentence, but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

A destructive, money-moving tool with no output schema, yet the description covers the monetary outcome, the sandbox safety guarantee, the stale-fee failure mode, and post-expiry timing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or route elsewhere.

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 100% and the schema descriptions already explain id, killFee, idempotencyKey and key. The description reinforces the killFee-must-match-current-fee rule but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Cancel an errand (ACT) a Human has claimed and not yet submitted') and pins it to an exact endpoint, POST /api/v1/acts/{id}/cancel. The precondition (claimed, not yet submitted) separates it cleanly from withdraw_act, which acts on unclaimed/post-expiry ACTs.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Read the ACT with get_act first' and pass killFeeCents as killFee, and names the branch where the claim has already expired ('no kill fee is owed... withdraw_act takes it off'). An agent knows both the prerequisite call and the alternative tool.

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.

Resources