Cancel a Priority Notify subscription using its notify_id. Removes the waitlist alert for a restaurant without needing additional details.
Cancel a Priority Notify subscription by notify_id. The tool looks up the full spec from resy_list_notify internally — no other input needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notify_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait: the tool internally looks up the full spec from resy_list_notify, so only notify_id is required. However, it does not disclose whether cancellation is irreversible, whether it requires authentication, error behavior, or the response/outcome, which are significant for a mutating tool.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The action and key input are front-loaded, and the internal lookup detail is a single clause that earns its place. Very efficient.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the operation, the parameter's role, and an internal behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not state what a successful cancellation returns or how errors are signaled, and it omits authentication/authorization context. It is usable but not fully complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only defines type/range for notify_id. The description adds meaning by stating the parameter is the subscription identifier and that no other input is needed, and it references resy_list_notify as the source of the spec. It does not explain how to obtain the notify_id or validate it, so coverage is partial.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('Priority Notify subscription') and identifies the key input (notify_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resy_add_notify and resy_list_notify.
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?
The description implies usage by defining the action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as first listing notifications. It does note that no other input is needed, which offers some guidance. Absence of explicit exclusions or alternative references limits the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.