Cancels an appointment by setting its status to cancelled, removing linked Google Calendar and GoHighLevel events, and firing the cancellation event. Returns 409 if already cancelled.
Cancel an appointment. Sets status cancelled, removes the Google Calendar and GoHighLevel events, fires appointment.cancelled. 409 already_cancelled if it already is. Send {} as the body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effects: status becomes cancelled, Google Calendar and GoHighLevel events are removed, and appointment.cancelled is fired. It also names the 409 already_cancelled failure mode, which is exactly the state an agent needs before retrying. Minor gaps remain: no statement about irreversibility, whether the contact is notified, or what a 404-style missing-id case returns.
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?
Four short telegraphic sentences, side effects front-loaded and the error contract placed before the body instruction. Nothing is wasted.
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 destructive single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, downstream integrations, the emitted event, and the key error case. It stops short of documenting auth requirements and post-cancellation response shape, but an agent has enough 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 coverage is 100% and there is only one documented parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The added instruction "Send {} as the body" is mildly ambiguous alongside a required id and adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Cancel an appointment") and immediately scopes what cancelling means operationally, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like update_appointment, reschedule_appointment, or book_appointment without opening a schema.
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?
Implies when to use it (the appointment should not already be cancelled, since 409 already_cancelled is returned), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer cancel over reschedule_appointment or update_appointment, and no mention of prerequisites such as permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.