Cancel a task. Refunds escrow for unfilled slots back to your balance. Fails if executors are currently working — review their results first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| refund | No | USDT refunded to your balance |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "refund": {
+ "description": "USDT refunded to your balance",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes refund behavior and failure condition, adding significant context beyond annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint). No contradictions.
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 concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers success outcome, financial impact, and failure condition. Complete and sufficient.
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?
Only one parameter (task_id) with full schema coverage. Description does not add detail beyond schema, but the tool's action is self-explanatory. 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?
Description clearly states the verb (cancel) and resource (task), with specifics about refunding escrow. It distinguishes well from siblings like list_tasks or accept_application.
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?
Explicitly warns against use when executors are working and suggests reviewing results first. Could be improved by naming the alternative tool (review_result) directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.