property-search

Cancel a booked viewing (with the link from its email)

cancel_viewing

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel a property viewing using the cancellation link from the viewing confirmation or reminder email the user received (paste the whole link or just its token). First call WITHOUT confirm to read the viewing back (address, time, status) and check it with the user; then call again with confirm: true to cancel it — the agent is notified and this cannot be undone. book_viewing's status_token is NOT a cancellation link.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cancel_link": "<cancel_link>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_viewing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Optional reason passed to the agent
`confirm`	No	true only after the user has confirmed they want THIS viewing cancelled
`cancel_link`	Yes	The cancellation link from the viewing email, or its token

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the operational shape those hints don't convey: the confirm-gated dry-run preview, the fact that cancellation cannot be undone, and that an agent is notified. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields rather than a restatement of them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and credential, then the sequence, then the sibling warning — no filler sentences. It is dense: one long sentence with an em-dash aside and multiple parentheticals, which is efficient but slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 3-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: where the credential comes from, the mandatory confirmation sequence, irreversibility, and the sibling confusion to avoid. Nothing required for a correct call is left unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by explaining the two-phase semantics of confirm (absent = read-back, true = execute) and by clarifying that cancel_link accepts either the whole link or just the token, which the schema only hints at.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Cancel a property viewing') and the credential required ('cancellation link from the viewing confirmation or reminder email'), including that either the full link or its token is accepted. It also explicitly rules out a confusing sibling artifact: 'book_viewing's status_token is NOT a cancellation link.'

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: first call without confirm to read the viewing back and check it with the user, then call again with confirm: true. It also names a tempting-but-wrong alternative (book_viewing's status_token), which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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

All property-search 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.

Resources

Need Help?