cancel_xdala_session_start_handoffCancel pending xDaLa session start handoff metadata only. This preparation/read-only MCP tool does not sign, submit, execute, or cancel on-chain work.
| 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 claims this is a 'preparation/read-only MCP tool', but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false, indicating it is not read-only. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, while it says it does not sign/submit/execute/cancel on-chain work, the tool name suggests cancellation of metadata, which is a write operation.
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 concise: two sentences that convey purpose and behavioral constraints without any redundant or extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description is relatively complete. However, the contradiction between description and annotations on read-only nature reduces clarity and completeness. It does not explain what cancelling metadata means or what happens to the session.
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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description for the 'handle' parameter. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool cancels pending xDaLa session start handoff metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_operation_handoff and cancel_xdala_bundle_deploy_handoff by specifying 'metadata only' and that it does not perform on-chain work.
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 implies the tool is for canceling a pending handoff, and the name clarifies the specific handoff type. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the context is clear. Adding prerequisites like needing a handle would improve.
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.