cancel_physical_taskCancel a dispatched physical-world task. Only tasks not yet completed or paid can be cancelled. Requires: API key from register_agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your Molt2Meet API key | |
| reason | No | Optional: reason for cancellation | |
| taskId | Yes | The task ID to cancel |
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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by stating the task must be undispatched/unpaid and that an API key from register_agent is required. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by key constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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 mutation tool with annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description includes preconditions and auth requirements. It does not detail post-cancellation effects or return values, but given the straightforward nature and schema coverage, it is largely complete.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds nuance by specifying the apiKey should come from register_agent, which is not explicitly in the schema ('Your Molt2Meet API key'). This small addition justifies a 4.
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 clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'dispatched physical-world task', with a specific scope ('Only tasks not yet completed or paid can be cancelled'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_task_with_settlement.
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 provides a clear precondition ('only tasks not yet completed or paid') and a prerequisite ('Requires: API key from register_agent'), giving context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for other cancellation scenarios (e.g., settlement-related), so it falls 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping pairs like fund_wallet and checkout_wallet_deposit (both create checkout URLs for wallet top-up) and cancel_physical_task vs cancel_task_with_settlement. Detailed descriptions and cross-references help, but the sheer number of similar actions creates misselection risk.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_*, list_*, approve_*). Minor deviations include inconsistent use of 'task' vs 'physical_task' in names and the awkward 'checkout_wallet_deposit', but overall the pattern is predictable.
54 tools is excessive for any server, even a complex platform. While each tool has a role, many are redundant or could be consolidated (e.g., wallet funding tools, multiple approval/cancel variations), making the set feel bloated and hard to navigate.
The tool set covers the full task lifecycle, escrow/direct settlement flows, wallet management, webhooks, support, and administrative functions. The only notable gap is the inability to update task details beyond location (description, deadline, etc.) after dispatch, but core workflows are well-covered.