Cancel an active add-on subscription. Stops future charges; the current cycle stays active until expiry. RPM upgrades are cancelled for THIS project. Returns {addonKey, project, cancelledAt}. Owner-only; requires a token minted with the billing scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addonKey | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description explains exactly what happens (charges stop, current cycle persists, RPM upgrades canceled), the return value shape, and required permissions. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the cancellation effect, project-specific impact, return shape, permission requirements, and destructive nature. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the addonKey parameter beyond implying it identifies the add-on. With one required parameter, the description should have mentioned how to obtain or format addonKey, but it does not.
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 tool cancels an active add-on subscription and specifies the effect (stops future charges, current cycle remains active). It distinguishes from related tools like cancel_subscription by focusing on add-on subscriptions and RPM upgrade cancellation specific to the project.
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?
It provides clear usage context: only for active add-ons, owner-only, requires a billing-scoped token. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is sufficiently clear to guide selection among siblings.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
