Dove

Cancel a request

cancel_request

Destructive

Cancels a pending request or the unsent items of an approved request, immediately releasing temporary access rights. Use the request_id from list_requests.

Instructions

Cancel a pending request, or the items of an approved request that were not sent yet; sent items stay sent. Cancelling an approved temporary access request gives its rights back at once. Get request_id from list_requests. A request that is already finished is returned unchanged; unknown ids return not_found.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request_id`	Yes	Request id from request_send, request_access or list_requests.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	No
`status`	No
`request_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 14, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
```
Added value: +"Request id from request_send, request_access or list_requests."
```
First observedv0.11.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past destructiveHint=true: it discloses partial cancellation semantics for approved requests, that sent items are unaffected, that cancelling a temporary access grant restores rights immediately, and the outcomes for finished requests and unknown ids. This is the kind of consequence detail an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its main restriction; every clause carries distinct information. The semicolon-chained phrasing is dense but still readable, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: eligibility conditions, side effects, error and no-op outcomes. Return value shapes are correctly left to the output schema.

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 the description's only parameter remark ('Get request_id from list_requests') largely repeats the schema's own description. No format, example, or validation detail is added beyond what the schema already carries, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a pending request') and immediately scopes it: pending requests fully, approved requests only for unsent items. The scope constraint plus the pointer to list_requests makes it distinguishable from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states which request states qualify (pending, or approved-but-unsent) and excludes sent items, and tells the agent to obtain request_id from list_requests. It does not name an alternative tool for the cases it refuses (e.g. how to handle already-sent items), but the in-scope/out-of-scope boundary is clear.

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