Cancela um chamado, encerrando-o SEM tratá-lo como atendido (duplicado, aberto por engano, fora de escopo). Cancelados não contam como resolvidos nos relatórios. Para um chamado efetivamente resolvido, use tiflux_close_ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: canceled tickets are closed without being treated as resolved and do not count as resolved in reports. It clarifies that the action is a mutation but not destructive; this is useful for the agent.
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 composed of two short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence names the action and its core distinction, and the second sentence explicitly points to the alternative tool, with no wasted words.
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 one-parameter cancellation tool, the description covers the action, its behavioral effect on reporting, and the appropriate alternative. Without an output schema, the description still gives enough context for an agent to use the tool 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?
The description does not go into detail about ticket_number beyond saying 'cancels a chamado', leaving the schema to carry the parameter meaning. The single parameter is self-explanatory, but since schema coverage is 0%, the description does not add extra guidance on format or usage.
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 and resource ('Cancela um chamado'), defines the closing behavior as not 'atendido', and explicitly differentiates from tiflux_close_ticket. It is unambiguous about what the tool does and avoids confusion with its closest sibling.
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 clearly states when the tool should be used (duplicates, mistakenly opened, or out-of-scope tickets) and when it must not be used (effectively resolved tickets, which should go to tiflux_close_ticket). This gives the agent an explicit decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.