Cancel an open payment request with no verified settlement.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"idOrPid": "<idOrPid>"
},
"name": "cancel_payment_request"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idOrPid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key eligibility condition, but it does not explain permissions, irreversibility, side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the request is settled or not open.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The core action and the key eligibility constraint appear immediately.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too sparse. It covers purpose and a precondition but leaves out important operational details needed to call it safely and correctly.
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 0% and the single parameter is named only 'idOrPid.' The description implies that the parameter identifies the payment request to cancel, but it does not clarify whether an ID, public ID, or other identifier format is expected.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an open payment request.' It also adds a scope qualifier, 'with no verified settlement,' which makes the operation distinguishable from related payment-request tools such as create, get, extend, and list.
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 gives a clear precondition for use: the payment request must be open and have no verified settlement. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
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.