cancel_xdala_bundle_deploy_handoffCancel a pending XDaLa bundle deploy handoff. This is offchain metadata only and never cancels chain transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Opaque handoff handle returned by a previous XDaLa MCP tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Structured result data returned by the XGR MCP gateway. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that this operation is 'offchain metadata only and never cancels chain transactions,' which is valuable context beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive). It could mention what happens if the handoff is already processed.
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 short sentences, each adding essential information: the core purpose and a key behavioral clarification. No redundant or unnecessary 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?
The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and safety aspects. With an output schema present and low complexity, it is sufficiently complete, though it could explicitly state that the handle must be valid and pending.
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?
With 100% schema coverage and the schema already describing the 'handle' parameter as opaque and from a previous MCP tool, the description adds no new parameter meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 'pending XDaLa bundle deploy handoff', distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_operation_handoff and cancel_xdala_session_start_handoff.
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 specifies the tool is for canceling a pending XDaLa bundle deploy handoff, implying its specific scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative cancel tools by name.
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.
There are many overlapping session-listing tools (list_xdala_sessions, get_recent_xdala_sessions, find_latest_xdala_session, list_xdala_session_ids, get_latest_session_payload) and duplicate validation tools (validate_xdala_bundle is an alias for validate_xgr_multibundle). Descriptions help but boundaries are still unclear.
The verb_noun snake_case pattern is consistent across nearly all tools (get_, list_, create_, cancel_, validate_). Minor inconsistencies include the alias validate_xdala_bundle and interchangeable verbs like get_ vs read_ vs resolve_ for similar read operations.
With 95 tools, this is far beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy and difficult for an agent to navigate.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations: handoffs, session queries, transaction exploration, contract reads, validation, gas requests, and purchases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct workflow editing tools), but overall the surface is remarkably complete.