yesmcp

Cancel a booking

cancel_booking

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancels one of yesmcp's consultation bookings and frees the window for others. Requires the booking reference from the confirmation email AND the email address the booking was made with — ask the user for both before calling. Confirm with the user that they really want to cancel before you call this tool; it cannot be undone (though they can always book a fresh window).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	The email address the booking was made with.
`bookingId`	Yes	The booking reference, exactly as in the confirmation email.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal destructive (destructiveHint=true), but the description adds crucial context: the cancellation frees the window for others and cannot be undone. It also states the required confirmation step, going beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, each purposeful: action and effect, required inputs, and confirmation/irreversibility warning. Front-loaded and free of 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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool does, side effects, prerequisites, and user confirmation. Annotations cover destructive/idempotent hints, so nothing essential is missing.

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%; both bookingId and email are documented. The description repeats the same semantics and only adds an instruction to ask the user, not new parameter meaning, so 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 specific verb ('Cancels') and resource ('yesmcp's consultation bookings'), and clarifies the side effect of freeing the window. The tool is clearly distinguishable from siblings like book_consult and reschedule_booking.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: the booking reference and email address must be obtained from the user before calling, and requires user confirmation before cancellation. It also notes the alternative of booking a fresh window, though it does not explicitly contrast with reschedule_booking, so exclusions are absent.

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

All yesmcp 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

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct: booking lifecycle (book, cancel, reschedule, availability), services, scenarios, and meta tools each target different actions. The widget/non-widget pairs (book_consult vs booking_widget, get_services vs services_widget) and list_availability vs booking_widget could cause confusion, but the descriptions explicitly state which to prefer and when.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow verb_noun (book_consult, cancel_booking, reschedule_booking, get_services, list_availability, advise_scenarios), but four break the pattern with noun_noun or gerund forms (booking_widget, services_widget, directory_census, demo_walkthrough). The mix is readable but inconsistent, especially the widget pairings that differ from their non-widget counterparts.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for a consultation and advisory service server. Each tool earns its place: full booking lifecycle, services catalog, scenario playbooks, and reviewer-facing meta tools. No redundant or filler tools.

Completeness4/5

The booking lifecycle is fully covered (list, book, cancel, reschedule) plus interactive widgets, and services/scenario discovery is solid. The only notable gap is that cancel/reschedule require the email confirmation reference — there is no 'list my bookings' tool to look up bookings by email. The demo/census tools are meta but deliberately scoped.

Resources

Need Help?