Skip to main content
Glama

Cancel Friend Request

horizon_cancel_friend_request
DestructiveIdempotent

Cancels an outgoing friend request using the reviewed player revision and exact request ID. Prevents duplicate or unintended retries by rejecting mismatched revisions.

Instructions

Cancels Friend Request using the reviewed player revision. Use when: the player explicitly requests this social action. Not for: automatic retries after timeout, automatic acceptance of crossed requests or changing expectedRevision without reconciling intent. Requires: userId and the player's session: sign in with horizon_signin_email or horizon_signin_anonymous and pass its accessToken as sessionToken. A current snapshot revision and its exact requestId. Side effects: Removes only this exact outgoing request and the matching recipient incoming record. No automatic retry. Repeating the same revision cannot create a second effect. Returns: Complete {userId,revision,friendCode,friends,incoming,outgoing,blocked,limits,serverTime} snapshot. Replace the matching host/project/player cache. lastActiveAt is the latest retained login, null when unknown; it is not online presence. Errors: 409 REVISION_CONFLICT or an uncertain response: get a new snapshot and reconcile intent, never silently replace expectedRevision and repeat. 404 FRIEND_REQUEST_NOT_FOUND means this request was removed or replaced; do not act on a newer ID. INBOX_FULL rejects the entire send/accept. Friend/request/block capacity limits reject additions while existing data remains removable. 401 means the session is missing or expired: sign in again and retry with the new accessToken. 403 for a session means the token belongs to another user: pass the userId that signed in. Needs HORIZON_API_KEY. Every failure returns an error result (isError) with the HTTP status and body: a 401 that horizon_test_connection also returns means HORIZON_API_KEY is wrong, 429 means the account's per-minute rate limit was reached (wait a minute, then retry).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesSigned-in player UUID matching the session
requestIdYesExact request ID from the reviewed incoming/outgoing snapshot
sessionTokenYesPlayer accessToken sent only as Authorization Bearer
targetUserIdYesThe other player UUID in the same project
expectedRevisionYesExact revision from the reviewed actor snapshot; never refresh and substitute automatically

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds the concrete mechanics: exactly which records are removed, that repetition cannot double-effect, that the returned snapshot should replace the cache, and the lastActiveAt semantics. It also documents auth requirements, error taxonomy (409, 404, INBOX_FULL, 401, 403, 429), and rate limiting — far beyond what the annotations supply.

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, then organized into labeled sections (Use when / Not for / Requires / Side effects / Returns / Errors). It is long but largely earns the length for a destructive, revision-guarded mutation; some error prose (e.g. HORIZON_API_KEY, 429 rate-limit explanation) could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully specifies the returned snapshot shape, cache-replacement guidance, and the failure surface. For a five-parameter destructive social action, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and recover from conflicts.

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 adds relational meaning: sessionToken comes from horizon_signin_email/anonymous, expectedRevision must come from a reviewed snapshot and not be auto-substituted, and requestId must be the exact reviewed ID. It does not explain format details, but it meaningfully clarifies how to source these values.

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 and resource ('Cancels Friend Request') and the exact object acted on ('this exact outgoing request'), which distinguishes it from horizon_decline_friend_request (incoming) and horizon_remove_friend (established friendship). The side-effects sentence makes the scope unambiguous.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' clauses, including concrete exclusions such as automatic retries after timeout and silently swapping expectedRevision. The alternative behaviors (snapshot + reconcile) are named, so the agent knows what to do instead of calling this tool blindly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools