resy-mcp

resy_cancel

Destructive

Cancel a Resy reservation using its rr:// token. Preview the venue, date, time, party size, and fee, then confirm to complete the cancellation.

Instructions

Cancel a Resy reservation by its resy_token (the rr://... identifier returned from resy_book or resy_list_reservations). The confirmation preview shows the Resy account, venue, date, time, party size, and any cancellation fee. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Once confirmed, the result carries cancelled (boolean: true only when the cancellation is confirmed) and outcome ("cancelled", "not_cancelled", or "unknown"). On "unknown", cancelled is false but the reservation MAY have been cancelled — check resy_list_reservations before retrying.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resy_token`	Yes	rr://... reservation identifier
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1Sep 25, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / confirm

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.4Jul 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.5.1Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, open-world and non-read-only, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the confirmation preview contents (account, venue, date, time, party size, fee), the two-phase confirmToken protocol and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, and the precise meaning of cancelled/outcome including the ambiguous 'unknown' case. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 verb and identifier, then the confirmation flow, then result semantics. It is dense and long, but essentially every clause carries non-redundant information; only the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE parenthetical could be trimmed slightly.

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, and the description compensates fully by naming the return fields (cancelled, outcome) and their possible values. Combined with the confirmation-flow detail, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already documents confirmToken's purpose in depth, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating where resy_token comes from (rr:// identifier returned from resy_book or resy_list_reservations), which the schema does not say.

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 Resy reservation) and immediately identifies the identifying argument, pointing to resy_book and resy_list_reservations as the token's origin. This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like resy_list_reservations and from resy_book.

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?

Explains the confirmation requirement, the client-dependent branching (elicitation vs two-step confirmToken fallback), and explicitly warns never to pass confirmToken on the first call. It also routes the agent to resy_list_reservations on an 'unknown' outcome before retrying, which is exactly the alternative-selection guidance expected.

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

Deploy Server

resy_cancel

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools