Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mundane

by market.mundane
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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. A step of a task chain is not cancelled here (409); use end_task_chain.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoWhy you are cancelling. Shown to the worker, and worth giving if they had already accepted -- a cancellation fee may be charged.
task_idYesThe task to cancel, along with any offer still pending on it.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo
task_idNo
fee_minorNo
was_acceptedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes further: it discloses that an accepted task may incur a cancellation fee, that the fee is returned as integer `fee_minor` units, and that chain steps yield a 409. These are concrete side effects and error semantics beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by side-effect and error-routing details. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the action, the fee side effect, the return field, and the failure routing to end_task_chain. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `task_id` and `reason` are already fully documented in the schema (including that reason is shown to the worker and ties to the fee). The description adds no additional parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a task and any pending offer'), and it explicitly distinguishes the scope from the closely related end_task_chain sibling, which handles task-chain steps. An agent can differentiate this from other task-mutation siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the condition that rules this tool out ('A step of a task chain is not cancelled here (409)') and names the exact alternative to use instead ('use `end_task_chain`'). This is explicit when-not guidance with a named alternative, not merely implied usage.

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

All Mundane toolsInspect
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.

Resources