Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

resy-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

resy_cancel

Destructive

Cancel a Resy reservation using its token. Preview venue, date, time, party size, and cancellation fee first, then confirm to proceed.

Instructions

Cancel a Resy reservation by its resy_token (the rr://... identifier returned from resy_book or resy_list_reservations). Confirm-gated: without confirm:true this returns a dry-run preview (venue, date, time, party size, and any cancellation fee) and cancels nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.
resy_tokenYesrr://... reservation identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavior beyond that: it details the dry-run preview (venue, date, time, party size, cancellation fee) and explicitly states that nothing is cancelled without confirm:true. This is exactly the kind of safety-critical context that helps an agent avoid accidental destructive actions. The description dramatically enhances the annotation's meaning.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each purposeful. The first establishes the action and how to obtain the token; the second explains the confirm gate and preview details. The critical safety information is front-loaded, and there is zero redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the essential aspects: how to identify the reservation, the destructive action, and the confirm gate that prevents accidental cancellation. It doesn't mention what happens on successful cancellation (e.g., return values), but since no output schema exists and the tool is destructive, the preview behavior is more important. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical, so a 4 is justified.

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 both parameters are documented. The description goes further by explaining the interplay between confirm and resy_token: that confirm gates the action and that resy_token identifies the reservation. This adds interaction context beyond individual parameter descriptions, though it doesn't add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so a 4 is fitting.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's action ('Cancel a Resy reservation'), the resource (resy_token), and even specifies the token format (rr://...) and its origin (from resy_book or resy_list_reservations). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like resy_book or resy_list_reservations, leaving no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains the confirm-gated behavior: without confirm:true it returns a dry-run preview, effectively telling the agent when to set confirm true vs. when to use it as a preview. It also connects to sibling tools by indicating where the resy_token comes from. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative cancellation paths, so a 4 is appropriate.

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