Cancels in-progress deployment requests or dismisses failed ones by submitting the corresponding action to the request endpoint.
Submit action on requests. Allowable values: cancel, dismiss. Cancel can be submitted on In-progress requests and Dismiss can be submitted on Failed requests. POST /deployment/api/requests/{requestId}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes | (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful state preconditions for cancel and dismiss, but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, authorization requirements, or response behavior beyond the HTTP endpoint.
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?
The description is short, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes: it states the operation, allowed values, state constraints, and endpoint. There is no redundant or filler language.
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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: allowed actions, valid request states, and the endpoint. It is not fully exhaustive about side effects or response handling, but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%, and the action parameter already has an enum in the schema. The description adds meaning by tying each allowed action to a request state, but requestId is only referenced through the endpoint path and gains little extra semantic detail.
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 and resource: submit an action on requests, with allowed values cancel and dismiss. It includes the endpoint path, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling submit-action tools such as deployment_submit_deployment_action_request or deployment_submit_resource_action_request.
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?
It gives clear state-based conditions: cancel applies to In-progress requests and dismiss applies to Failed requests. It does not name alternative tools or explain when to choose this request-level action over sibling deployment/resource action tools, but the action-specific context is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.