email_cancelCancel a pending email activation to stop verification and refund your wallet if no OTP was received. Use this to avoid charges for unused email requests.
Cancel an email activation. Refunds the wallet if no OTP was received. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Email activation id (from email_request or email_list). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does so well: it discloses the consequential refund side effect ('Refunds the wallet if no OTP was received') and the API-key prerequisite. It stops short of stating irreversibility or state restrictions, but the verb 'cancel' already implies the destructive nature.
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 short sentences cover the core action, a key side effect, and an auth requirement without filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, financial side effect, and authentication requirement. It leaves the success/error response and state constraints unspecified, but the tool is simple enough that the agent has what it needs to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%: the input schema already identifies 'id' and tells the agent it comes from email_request or email_list. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the 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 opens with a direct verb and concrete resource: 'Cancel an email activation.' This matches the tool name and title and clearly separates the tool from the generic sibling 'cancel' by targeting the email-activation 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 action 'Cancel an email activation' implies when to use it, and the refund condition adds context about the scenario. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings such as 'complete' or 'cancel', nor state any when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.