Plendio price comparison

Undo a gift reservation

unreserve_gift

DestructiveIdempotent

Takes back a gift reservation, given the list's share link, the product's Plendio id and the reservation_token returned when the gift was reserved. Only the holder of the token can undo a reservation. A product that is not reserved under the token is reported and left as it is. The product becomes free for other givers.

Tool call template

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": {
      "share_url": "<share_url>",
      "product_id": "<product_id>",
      "reservation_token": "<reservation_token>"
    },
    "name": "unreserve_gift"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`market`	No	Market for the urls in the answer: dk, se, de or no. Default: the market the list was made for.
`share_url`	Yes	The wishlist's share link, or the share id at the end of it.
`product_id`	Yes	Plendio product id of the gift to give back.
`reservation_token`	Yes	The reservation_token returned when the gift was reserved.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	The product's page on Plendio, listing all its offers.
`notes`	No
`title`	No	The product's title.
`reserved`	Yes	True when the product is now reserved under the token; false after an unreserve.
`share_url`	Yes	The list's page on Plendio.
`list_title`	Yes	The list's name, written by whoever made it.
`product_id`	Yes
`reservation_token`	No	Keep this: it undoes the reservation and reserves more products under the same name. Anyone holding it can give the product back.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: an authorization constraint (only the token holder can undo) and explicit no-op semantics (an unreserved product is reported and left unchanged), which an agent could not infer from the annotations alone. It does not mention rate limits or return payload details, though an output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it requires, who is allowed, and the failure/outcome behavior. The authorization and outcome facts are front-loaded rather than buried, and no sentence 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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description only needed to supply auth and no-op semantics — and it does. An agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret a non-destructive outcome.

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 every parameter including the market enum is already documented in the schema. The description restates the three required inputs in prose (share link, Plendio product id, reservation_token) but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb phrase ("Takes back a gift reservation") plus the exact identifying inputs, and the inverse relationship to reserve_gift is unambiguous without naming it. An agent can tell immediately that this is the reversal operation rather than a creation, lookup, or listing call.

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?

It states the precondition that selects this tool (you hold the reservation_token from a prior reserve) and describes the no-op case where the product isn't reserved under that token, which effectively tells the agent what happens when it calls this in the wrong situation. It stops short of explicitly naming reserve_gift as the counterpart or stating when not to call it.

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

All Plendio price comparison tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?