Skip to main content
Glama

Cancel a Substack code request

cancel_substack_verification
DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel the selected code request for the connected account owner. Does not cancel article schedules, delete drafts, or disconnect Substack. Use only when the user wants to cancel this verification request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe code request id returned for this same connection.
connectionIdYesThe exact Substack connection from the publishing response or get_user_profile.
scheduledPostIdNoThe exact saved article job from the publishing response. Pass it to resume that same job after verification.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
methodNo
messageYes
requiredNo
verifiedNo
cancelledNo
challengeNo
expiresAtNo
connectionNo
nextActionNo
instructionNo
publicationYes
connectionIdYes
articleRecoveryNo
resumedArticlesNo
scheduledPostIdNo
connectedAccountNo
deliveryConfirmedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / scheduledPostId
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The exact saved article job from the publishing response. Pass it to resume that same job after verification.",
      +  "maxLength": 64,
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / challenge / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
      -  {
      -    "additionalProperties": false,
      -    "properties": {
      -      "expiresAt": {
      -        "format": "date-time",
      -        "type": "string"
      -      },
      -      "id": {
      -        "type": "string"
      -      },
      -      "method": {
      -        "anyOf": [
      -          {
      -            "enum": [
      -              "email",
      -              "totp"
      -            ],
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          {
      -            "type": "null"
      -          }
      -        ]
      -      }
      -    },
      -    "required": [
      -      "id",
      -      "method",
      -      "expiresAt"
      -    ],
      -    "type": "object"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]New value: +[
      +  {
      +    "additionalProperties": false,
      +    "properties": {
      +      "expiresAt": {
      +        "format": "date-time",
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "id": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "method": {
      +        "anyOf": [
      +          {
      +            "enum": [
      +              "email",
      +              "totp"
      +            ],
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          {
      +            "type": "null"
      +          }
      +        ]
      +      },
      +      "scheduledPostId": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "id",
      +      "method",
      +      "expiresAt"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "type": "null"
      +  }
      +]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / scheduledPostId
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / instruction
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / nextAction
      Added value: +{
      +  "const": "wait_for_code",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description goes beyond them by delimiting the blast radius — it cancels only the code request and does not touch schedules, drafts, or the Substack connection — which is exactly the kind of added context that matters for a destructive call.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by exclusions and a usage gate. No filler, no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, exclusions, and the trigger condition. It stops short of mentioning the resume-after-verification flow implied by scheduledPostId, but that is already carried in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains id, connectionId, and scheduledPostId in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Cancel the selected code request') scoped to the connected account owner, and explicitly fences itself off from adjacent mutations (article schedules, drafts, disconnecting Substack). An agent can distinguish it from cancel_scheduled_item/cancel_scheduled_post without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear directive: 'Use only when the user wants to cancel this verification request,' which is a real when-to-use constraint. It does not, however, name the sibling alternative (e.g. complete_substack_verification or get_substack_verification_status) for the case where the user wants to proceed rather than cancel.

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