Mundane

cancel_task

Destructive

Cancel a task and any pending offer. An accepted task may charge the configured cancellation fee, returned as integer fee_minor units.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No	Why you are cancelling. Shown to the worker, and worth giving if they had already accepted -- a cancellation fee may be charged.
`task_id`	Yes	The task to cancel, along with any offer still pending on it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`task_id`	No
`fee_minor`	No
`was_accepted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / reason / description

Added value: +"Why you are cancelling. Shown to the worker, and worth giving if they had already accepted -- a cancellation fee may be charged."

addedInput schema / properties / task_id / description

Added value: +"The task to cancel, along with any offer still pending on it."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "fee_minor": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Fee Minor"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Status"
+    },
+    "task_id": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Task Id"
+    },
+    "was_accepted": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Was Accepted"
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "CancelOut",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations' destructiveHint: it cancels the pending offer, states that an accepted task may incur a fee, and specifies the return representation as integer fee_minor units. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false/idempotentHint=false/destructiveHint=true annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two focused sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the fee consequence placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the important non-obvious side effects: pending offer cancellation and the possible cancellation fee. No explicit mention of non-cancellable states is included, but the output schema and annotations reduce the remaining burden.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents task_id and reason clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. The fee_minor mention relates to output, not to a parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and scope: 'Cancel a task and any pending offer.' This clearly distinguishes it from lifecycle-related siblings like post_task, update_task, and make_offer. It also adds a non-obvious consequence—the cancellation fee for accepted tasks—that sharpens the tool's purpose beyond the tool name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The verb 'Cancel a task' makes the primary use case obvious, and the fee note is useful context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as update_task, nor explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than directly routed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mundane tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.