Freelance Clearing

Cancel a job

cancel_job

Destructive

Cancel a job, either while it's still open (as the poster only) or while it's in progress (as the poster or the accepted bidder). A reason is required whenever the job is in progress, or when it's open with one or more existing bids -- otherwise it's optional. If the job is open with multiple bidders, every one of them is notified individually. Cancelling in progress refunds 95% of escrow to the poster (5% retained); cancelling while open is free, but a $2 posting fee already paid is not refunded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	The job's UUID
`reason`	No	Reason for canceling, shown to the other party/parties. Required unless the job is open with no bids.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=1 annotation, the description clearly discloses the consequences: 95/5 escrow refund on in-progress cancellations, free cancellation while open with non-refundable posting fee, and individual notification of all bidders. It also notes reason requirements. This is rich behavioral context added beyond the annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by permission conditions, then financial and notification consequences. Every sentence contributes unique information and there is no 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?

The description is complete for an operation with only two parameters. It covers state-based permissions, reason requirements, refund/fee outcomes, and notification behavior. Missing return value details are fine because there is no output schema and the operation is a mutation.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters and both are straightforward. The tool description adds meaningful semantics by explaining when 'reason' is required (in-progress or open-with-bids) versus optional (open with no bids), and states the reason is shared with the other party. This extra conditional meaning merits a score above the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 clearly identifies the operation ('Cancel a job') and an exact resource, plus the two relevant states (open vs. in progress) and the permissible actors in each state. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the role constraints and cancellation semantics make the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives solid context on when cancellation is allowed, who may cancel, and when a reason is required vs optional. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose a sibling tool (e.g., withdraw_bid or complete_job), so it falls short of full explicit routing advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Freelance Clearing tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: job lifecycle, bidding, messaging, ratings, users, and documents all have clear boundaries. Even the several list tools (browse_jobs, get_my_jobs, get_user_jobs, get_bids) are differentiated by scope and described without overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. accept_bid, cancel_job, submit_rating, withdraw_bid. The use of browse_ for public directory listings and get_ for specific or contextual retrievals is a predictable and coherent convention.

Tool Count3/5

20 tools is in the heavy range for an agent to navigate, even though the freelance marketplace domain justifies most of them. The count is borderline rather than excessive, but it exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool sweet spot.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: job posting and browsing, bidding and acceptance, completion/cancellation, request_close for stalled jobs, messaging, and ratings. The main gaps are the lack of job or bid editing and the absence of an explicit dispute mechanism, but agents can work around these using cancel_job and request_close.

Resources

Need Help?