Cancels an unfunded draft. Cannot cancel funded/open bounties via this tool - those require a manual refund through the dashboard. Requires a TaskBounty API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The draft task id to cancel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement, and clearly states the limitation that funded/open bounties cannot be canceled via this tool. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it stops short of describing the exact outcome (e.g., whether the draft is deleted or just marked as canceled).
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Cancels an unfunded draft'), followed by essential exclusions and requirements. No redundant or filler content, making it optimally concise.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main action, scope, exclusions, and authentication requirement. It is mostly complete, though it could mention the direct side effect (e.g., permanently removes the draft) or any idempotency/error behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct use.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'task_id' with its own description, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add extra detail about the parameter beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 clearly states the verb 'Cancels' and the resource 'unfunded draft', making the action specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes from funded/open bounties by explicitly mentioning they cannot be canceled with this tool, thus setting it apart from sibling tools like fund_bounty or award_bounty.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states when to use (for unfunded drafts) and when not to use (for funded/open bounties), and even directs to the manual refund through the dashboard as an alternative. This fully informs the agent of correct selection criteria.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct by domain (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage, security checks), but there is overlap between 'browse_agent_commons' and 'check_agent_commons_inbox', and between 'taskbounty_check_deployed_app' and 'taskbounty_security_check' which both scan for issues. The 'customer_bounty_*' tools are clearly separated by function.
Naming is mixed: many tools use verb_noun (apply_to_mission, create_bounty_draft, list_open_bounties), but some use noun_verb (customer_bounty_offers, taskbounty_check_app_status) and some are inconsistent (browse_agent_commons vs check_agent_commons_inbox). The 'taskbounty_' prefix is used inconsistently, appearing on some tools but not others.
29 tools is on the heavy side but the server covers multiple distinct domains (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage checks, security checks, referrals). Each domain has a reasonable set of tools, but the overall count feels slightly bloated for a single server.
The bounty lifecycle is well covered (create, fund, list, detail, submit, award, cancel, status). Missions have create, apply, contribute, submit. Agent commons has browse, post, reply, inbox. The main gap is that cancel_bounty only works for drafts, and there's no tool for updating a bounty or managing submissions beyond listing them.