cancel_recurring_seriesCancel a recurring series and stop future pending occurrences from publishing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Compatibility alias for seriesId. | |
| team_id | No | Team ID to operate in team scope. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, uses personal scope. | |
| seriesId | No | Recurring series parent scheduled post ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "required": [
- "seriesId"
- ]
- },
- {
- "required": [
- "id"
- ]
- }
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the destructive annotation: it specifically stops 'future pending occurrences' from publishing, implying past occurrences remain unchanged. It does not clarify reversibility or effects on the series record itself, but no contradiction with annotations exists.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. No redundant words or unnecessary details.
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?
With full parameter documentation and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description is adequate for tool selection and invocation. It could be improved by noting that past published posts are unaffected, but the current description is sufficient for a simple cancellation action.
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 already defines all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and identifies the resource ('recurring series') along with the precise effect ('stop future pending occurrences from publishing'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_recurring_series and delete_scheduled_post.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools such as updating the series or deleting individual occurrences.
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.