braintree_void_transactionDESTRUCTIVE. Void (cancel) a transaction that has NOT yet settled — e.g. an authorization or one submitted-for-settlement. Use the GraphQL global transaction ID. GraphQL mutation voidTransaction. For already-settled transactions use braintree_refund_transaction instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transactionId | Yes | GraphQL global transaction ID to void. |
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. The description adds context by labeling 'DESTRUCTIVE', explaining the action (cancel), and highlighting the condition (not yet settled). It also mentions the GraphQL mutation name, which goes beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences, no fluff. Key info (destructive label, condition, alternative tool) is front-loaded and efficiently presented.
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 one required parameter, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral details adequately. It lacks return value description but that is not required.
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 one parameter described. The description repeats 'GraphQL global transaction ID' but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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's purpose: to void (cancel) a transaction that has not yet settled. It provides examples (authorization, submitted-for-settlement) and specifies the verb and resource.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for unsettled transactions) and when not (for settled transactions, directing to braintree_refund_transaction instead). It also specifies using the GraphQL global transaction ID.
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.
Tools are largely distinct, covering customers, payment methods, transactions, and subscriptions. However, 'list_subscriptions' uses transactions as a proxy, causing potential overlap with 'search_transactions' for customer-scoped searches.
All tools follow a consistent 'braintree_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., find_customer, search_transactions, refund_transaction). Verbs are sensible and uniform, making the set predictable.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a payment gateway. It covers core transaction and customer lookups, plus refund/void operations, without excessive bloat.
The set lacks essential CRUD operations like creating or updating customers, payment methods, or transactions. Subscriptions are only partially covered via a workaround, leaving notable gaps for a complete workflow.