sparkclose.cancel_unsignedConfirm cancellation and void a pending signature request; retain history. Signed agreements require first-party correction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| investment_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| expected_version | Yes | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: cancellation retains history, and signed agreements are not handled by this tool. It does not disclose every side effect, but given the annotation coverage, the added context is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences, action front-loaded ('Confirm cancellation and void a pending signature request'), with a single important boundary statement. No filler or redundant restatement of the title. Highly scannable.
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?
The tool has five parameters, including a required expected_version and optional confirmation_token, but the description only describes the high-level effect, not how these fields fit into the cancellation flow. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description leaves prerequisite and validation details to inference. Adequate for tool selection, not fully complete for invocation.
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 mention any parameter. The roles of required fields like expected_version and optional confirmation_token or idempotency_key are left entirely to inference from names and schema patterns. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.
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 names a specific operation ('void a pending signature request' / 'cancel') on a specific resource ('unsigned SAFE investment'), and the closing sentence ('Signed agreements require first-party correction') differentiates it from signed-investment flows. This is much clearer than a generic 'cancel investment' and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like sparkclose.close_investment.
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 explicitly limits the tool to pending/unsigned signature requests and excludes signed agreements ('Signed agreements require first-party correction'). It does not name sibling alternatives or spell out prerequisites such as needing an existing pending request, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.