cancel_scheduleCancel active payment schedules by specific ID, all from a provider, or cancel every schedule at once.
Cancel one or more active schedules. Pass id for exactly one, provider for all of that provider's, or neither to cancel everything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| provider | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavior: it cancels only active schedules, and the 'neither' case cancels everything, which is a critical side effect. However, with no annotations provided, it leaves the agent to infer whether cancellation is irreversible, whether confirmation is returned, and what happens on invalid inputs.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second front-loads the exact parameter selection rules. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
The core invocation behavior is well covered, especially the dangerous cancellation of all schedules. Missing are return/confirmation behavior, error handling, and any role of api_key; with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide at least a hint about these.
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?
The description provides strong semantics for id and provider, including exclusivity and the empty-argument behavior, which is crucial given 0% schema description coverage. However, the api_key parameter is never mentioned, so one of the three parameters remains entirely unexplained.
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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('one or more active schedules'), and clearly distinguishes the three targeting modes. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from schedule-creation or listing siblings.
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?
The description gives explicit guidance on when to pass id versus provider versus neither, which is strong usage direction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but no sibling exists for cancellation, so the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.