Skip to main content
Glama

cancel

Cancel a pending Chrome Web Store submission to stop an item currently under review from being published.

Instructions

Cancel a pending submission on Chrome Web Store. Can be used to cancel an item currently in review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemIdNoExtension item ID (defaults to CWS_ITEM_ID env var)
publisherIdNoPublisher ID (defaults to CWS_PUBLISHER_ID env var or 'me')

Implementation Reference

  • The 'cancel' tool implementation handles the API call to cancel a pending submission for a Chrome Web Store extension. It uses 'resolveItemId' and 'resolvePublisherId' to get parameters, calls the ':cancelSubmission' endpoint via 'apiCall', and formats the response.
    server.tool(
      "cancel",
      "Cancel a pending submission on Chrome Web Store. Can be used to cancel an item currently in review.",
      {
        itemId: z
          .string()
          .optional()
          .describe("Extension item ID (defaults to CWS_ITEM_ID env var)"),
        publisherId: z
          .string()
          .optional()
          .describe("Publisher ID (defaults to CWS_PUBLISHER_ID env var or 'me')"),
      },
      async ({ itemId, publisherId }) => {
        try {
          const id = resolveItemId(itemId);
          const pub = resolvePublisherId(publisherId);
    
          const url = `${API_BASE}/v2/publishers/${pub}/items/${id}:cancelSubmission`;
          const result = await apiCall(url, { method: "POST" });
    
          return formatResponse(result);
        } catch (e: any) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${e.message}` }],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      },
    );
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool performs a cancellation action, implying a mutation (not read-only). However, it lacks details about permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens after cancellation (e.g., status changes). The description adds basic behavioral context but misses important operational details.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds clarifying context about the item's state. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. For a cancellation tool, more context on outcomes would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (itemId and publisherId) with their types and default values. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Cancel') and resource ('a pending submission on Chrome Web Store'), with additional context about the item being 'currently in review'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'publish', 'upload', or 'update-metadata' which involve different operations.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when there is 'a pending submission' that is 'currently in review'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for already published items) or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mikusnuz/cws-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server