Cancel a recurring Asaas subscription by ID to stop future billing and manage active subscriptions.
Cancela uma assinatura recorrente no Asaas
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscription_id | Yes | Identificador único da assinatura no Asaas (ex: sub_0123456789) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation. It does not disclose whether cancellation is permanent, whether it takes effect immediately or at period end, what happens to pending charges, or what permissions are required. A single sentence is far too thin for an irreversible write.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to scan; the limitation is under-specification rather than bloat, which this dimension does not penalize heavily.
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 cancellation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical context unstated: irreversibility, timing of effect, and return value. It gives the agent no basis to warn the user or confirm intent before invoking.
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 100% and the single parameter has a clear description with an example format, so the schema does the work and the description need not add parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Cancela uma assinatura recorrente') and names the platform, so the agent knows this cancels a subscription rather than creates or lists one. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_subscription or list_subscriptions beyond the verb, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_subscriptions or create_subscription, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of when cancellation is inappropriate (e.g. already-cancelled subscriptions). The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.