Keelen

Remove Cancelled Dependency

remove_cancelled_dependency

Destructive

List or remove a dependency on a task cancelled without delivery.

``escalation_id`` is a ``prerequisite_hold_stalled`` card. A waiting task
whose dependency points at a task cancelled without proof of delivery can
never start. Without ``task_id`` and ``predecessor_task_id`` this lists
every such dependency in the card's project and changes nothing. With both,
it removes that ONE dependency, so the waiting task can be groomed and
built without the cancelled work; any other dependency is refused. The
card then refreshes, or resolves when no held prerequisite remains.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	No
`escalation_id`	Yes
`predecessor_task_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the default call changes nothing, removal is scoped to exactly ONE dependency, other dependencies are refused, and the card refreshes or auto-resolves afterward. It does not address idempotency (declared false) or any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the dual list/remove behavior, then explains the why, then the mode switch, then the side effect. Every sentence carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers mode semantics, refusal behavior, and post-call card state. What an agent still can't determine is how to obtain the two optional IDs and what a refusal looks like at the call level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: escalation_id is constrained to a prerequisite_hold_stalled card, and the two optional IDs are explained as a coupled pair whose joint presence switches from read to destructive mode. No id format or origin hints (where to obtain predecessor_task_id) are given.

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 ('list or remove a dependency') with a precise scope qualifier: the dependency points at a task cancelled without proof of delivery. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead (e.g. resolve_escalation, retry_blocked_task), so differentiation relies on the reader inferring it from the escalation-card framing.

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?

Gives a clear when: a held prerequisite whose dependency points at a cancelled task can never start. Gives an explicit mode selector (no task_id/predecessor_task_id = list, both = remove) and an exclusion ('any other dependency is refused'). It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over resolving the escalation card outright.

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

All Keelen 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.