Cancels an eligible eSIM order before activation/provisioning. Requires a valid session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | The secure session token returned by verify_agent_otp. | |
| orderId | Yes | The ID of the order to cancel. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| isError | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "text"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "isError": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context annotations do not carry: the auth requirement ('Requires a valid session token') and the state precondition (order must be pre-activation). It stops short of explaining irreversibility or refund/wallet consequences.
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 and its eligibility constraint front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation's risk profile. The description supplies the auth requirement and the eligibility window, but 'eligible' is never defined and no failure/error behavior is hinted at.
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 100% and both parameters (token, orderId) are documented there, including that the token comes from verify_agent_otp. The description only restates the token requirement and adds no format, source, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Cancels an eligible eSIM order') plus a scoping condition ('before activation/provisioning'), so the agent knows exactly what action it performs. No other sibling performs cancellation, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it short of a full 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?
'Eligible ... before activation/provisioning' implies the window in which the tool may be used and the token prerequisite is named. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do for an already-activated order, or whether a refund path exists), leaving usage partly to inference.
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.