delega-mcp

cancel_human_request

Cancel a human request using its current version to prevent new capabilities, replies, and completion, releasing the controller's claim without reopening work.

Instructions

Record cancellation using the request version from get_human_request. Prevents new capabilities, accepted replies and completion; the controller releases its own claim. Does not take ownership or reopen completed work. Repeating an already-recorded cancellation is a no-op.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "expected_version": "<expected_version>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_human_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	Existing task's exact internal ID
`expected_version`	Yes	Current human request version, not the task revision

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.19.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: it prevents new capabilities, accepted replies, and completion, the controller releases its own claim, and repeats are a no-op (idempotency). It omits whether cancellation is reversible and how a version mismatch fails, which an agent mutating state would want to know.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its prerequisite version source. Each sentence earns its place by adding a distinct behavioral fact (effect on the request, claim release, idempotency).

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover effects and it largely does: what is blocked, who releases the claim, what is not done, and repeat behavior. The remaining gap is the return value and failure mode on a stale version, which matters for an optimistic-concurrency mutation.

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 100% and both parameters are documented, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds one genuinely useful hint - that expected_version comes from get_human_request - but says nothing further about task_id semantics beyond the schema's 'exact internal ID'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record cancellation') and anchors it to get_human_request as the source of the version token, which separates it from the read-side sibling. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from ownership-changing siblings by noting it 'Does not take ownership', though it never names claim_task or release_task as adjacent operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to cancel a human request after reading one via get_human_request. Exclusions are partial - 'Does not take ownership or reopen completed work' rules out some misuse - but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or guidance on what to do if the version is stale.

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