Skip to main content
Glama

withdraw_condition_edit

Discard a pending condition-edit proposal without changing the condition; undo_last can re-seat it.

Instructions

Drop a pending condition-edit proposal (#365) without touching the condition. undo_last re-seats it.

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": {
      "proposal_id": "<proposal_id>"
    },
    "name": "withdraw_condition_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposal_idYesFrom propose_condition_edit, or takeoff_summary's proposed_condition_edits

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conditionYes
withdrawnYes
proposal_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.31
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv0.1.21

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the underlying condition is left untouched and that undo_last restores the proposal, but says nothing about permissions, whether the proposal is deleted or archived, or failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The cryptic '#365' reference is the only element that costs the reader without adding clear value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the core action plus side-effect scope are covered. Still, an agent cannot confidently choose between this, withdraw_proposal, and revise_proposal from this text alone.

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% and the single parameter is well documented there as coming from propose_condition_edit or takeoff_summary. The description adds no parameter meaning; the '#365' token is unexplained and does not clarify proposal_id.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and object: 'Drop a pending condition-edit proposal'. The phrase 'without touching the condition' differentiates it from edit_condition, but the description never mentions the sibling withdraw_proposal, so disambiguation is partial.

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?

'pending' implies it applies only to uncommitted proposals and 'undo_last re-seats it' hints at reversal, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus withdraw_proposal or revise_proposal, both of which are close siblings in the list.

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