SAAX Protocol

Cancel a commitment

cancel_commitment

Cancels a commitment when the caller (verified by EIP-712 proof) holds buyer or authority authorization with cancel scope. Terminal and nonfinancial � no payment, refund, or settlement is executed. Reconciles authoritative state first. Idempotent via idempotencyRef.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "commitmentId": "<commitmentId>",
      "agentId": "<agentId>",
      "role": "<role>",
      "proof": "<proof>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_commitment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	The caller's role (cancel requires buyer or authority)
`proof`	Yes	EIP-712 AuthorityProof signed by the caller (issuer = signer)
`reason`	No	Cancellation reason (recorded as authority reference)
`agentId`	Yes	The caller's durable agent identifier
`commitmentId`	Yes	The commitment id
`idempotencyRef`	No	Caller-scoped idempotency reference

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement, that the operation is terminal (irreversible in practice), that it is nonfinancial, that it reconciles authoritative state before acting, and that it is idempotent via idempotencyRef. Missing only failure behavior, e.g. what happens when the proof or role is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then four tight clauses that each add a distinct fact (auth, terminality, nonfinancial, reconciliation, idempotency). No filler, though there is a stray garbled character in 'nonfinancial no payment' that slightly mars formatting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with a nested proof object and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical decision inputs: who may call it, that it is irreversible, that it moves no money, and that retries are safe. It stops short of describing the returned state or error responses, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the role enum note that cancel requires buyer or authority. The description restates the authorization model and the idempotency mechanism at a high level but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancels a commitment') and immediately adds scope: authorization via EIP-712 proof, terminal outcome, and nonfinancial nature. This implicitly separates it from settlement/close-style siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description supplies a clear precondition ('buyer or authority authorization with cancel scope') and one exclusion ('no payment, refund, or settlement is executed'), which steers callers away from using it to settle. It never says when to prefer cancel over accept/close/raise_dispute, so routing among terminal-state siblings is left to inference.

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

All SAAX Protocol tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.