Skip to main content
Glama

wake_cancel

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel a pending wake-up you own, or any pending wake-up in the project as a running lead. This also clears related hold notices and undelivered finish notices for that wake-up.

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wake_idYes
project_idNoDifferent 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wake_idYes
cancelledYes
hive_noticeNo
cancelled_noticesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • addedOutput schema / properties / hive_notice
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true), the description discloses rich side-effect semantics: cancelling a wake also cancels its hold notices, cancelling a standing watch cancels undelivered FINISH notices, but deliberately does NOT cancel a watch's per-worker block notice. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loads the core purpose well, but the back half is a dense, comma-heavy exposition of notice semantics that is far longer than needed to convey the key point (which notices are and aren't cancelled). Several clauses could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description thoroughly covers ownership, scope, and side effects. The main gap is the undocumented wake_id parameter, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%; project_id is documented in the schema, but wake_id has no description. The description touches on project scope ('any pending wake-up in this project') yet does not clarify what wake_id refers to or its format beyond the schema's integer constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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 ('cancel') and resource ('pending wake-up') with an explicit scope rule: own wakes, or any project wake if you are a running lead. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wake_set, wake_get, and wake_update.

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 ownership/lead-permission condition is clear implicit guidance for who may call it, and the project_id description in the schema reinforces staying in current scope. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with alternatives such as wake_update or state when cancellation is preferable to updating.

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