hive

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wake_cancel

Cancel a pending wake-up to remove unresolved hold and finish notices, preventing stale alerts in project coordination.

Instructions

Cancel a pending wake-up you own, or - if you are a running lead - any pending wake-up in this project. Cancelling any wake also cancels the hold notices already filed about IT (modal-hold, unsubmitted-input, and one-shot block), since a notice about a wake that no longer exists has nothing left to say; unlike a finish notice these never expire on their own, since the thing they report may well still be true an hour later. Cancelling a standing watch also cancels the FINISH notices it has already filed but not yet delivered. It does NOT cancel a standing watch's own per-worker block notice (a crew member stopped on a dialog): that carries no parent link, so one already filed still delivers, and it may still be true - the worker is probably still on that dialog - but it no longer claims anything about the watch's own liveness, deliberately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wake_id`	Yes
`project_id`	No	Different project override. Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks for another project by name; otherwise stay in the current scope, even when results are empty.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wake_id`	Yes
`cancelled`	Yes
`cancelled_notices`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses cascading cancellations of hold notices and undelivered finish notices, explicitly calls out what is NOT canceled, and even explains the underlying reasoning. This is far beyond what a typical tool description provides.

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?

The description is long, but every sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact or condition: scope, hold notice cancellation, finish notice cancellation, and the deliberate non-cancellation of the per-worker block notice. It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers exceptions, making it dense but structured. Some explanatory clauses could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers authorization scoping, side-effect cascades, edge cases about standing watches, and explicit non-effects. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers project_id with a description, but wake_id has no schema description and the tool description does not explicitly tie wake_id to the wake-up being canceled. The phrase 'Cancel a pending wake-up' implies wake_id identifies that wake-up, but this is indirect and does not fully compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a pending wake-up', and immediately clarifies the ownership scope and lead override. This clearly differentiates wake_cancel from siblings like wake_set and wake_update by focusing on cancellation rather than creation or modification.

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 clearly states when cancellation is permitted ('a pending wake-up you own, or - if you are a running lead - any pending wake-up in this project'), giving strong usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations, but the operation and permission conditions are unmistakable.

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