Skip to main content
Glama
ptaramona

Conduyt MCP Server

by ptaramona
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

conduyt_cancel_webhook_log

Cancel a parked, queued, or failed webhook log with an unconfirmed outcome: skip to advance the step or resend with duplicate-risk acknowledgement, or cancel only to hold the barrier.

Instructions

Cancel ONE parked / queued / failed webhook log of a drip send whose outcome was unconfirmed (POST /api/v1/webhook-logs/{id}/cancel; admin or owner, the webhooks scope). Without a resolution the log is cancelled and the barrier STANDS (nothing is sent, the enrollment stays parked). resolution 'skip' assumes the step was delivered: the processor advances without sending. resolution 'resend' makes the processor rebuild and send the step AGAIN (a possible duplicate SMS): it is refused unless acknowledgeDuplicateRisk is true. Answers 404 (no such log), 409 webhook_log_in_flight (a request is in flight right now: retry in a minute), 409 webhook_log_not_cancellable (already cancelled / succeeded) or 409 step_already_sent (the step already carries sent evidence: a resend would only advance it, use 'skip'). The response carries resolution, resendScheduled, advanceScheduled, handedBack, markersResolved and barrierStanding.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWebhook log UUID (from the replay answer's replayBlockedIds / replayUnarmableIds, or the merge's 409 drip_send_unconfirmed)
resolutionNoOmit to cancel only (the barrier stands). 'skip' = assume delivered, advance. 'resend' = send the step again (duplicate risk: needs acknowledgeDuplicateRisk)
acknowledgeDuplicateRiskNoRequired true with resolution 'resend': you accept the step may be delivered twice

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.71.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical behaviors: the barrier stands without a resolution, 'skip' advances without sending, 'resend' may duplicate an SMS and requires acknowledgement, and the endpoint requires admin/owner auth with the webhooks scope. It also lists specific error conditions (404, 409 in-flight, not-cancellable, step-already-sent) and response fields, which is unusually thorough.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and scope, and the dense detail is largely necessary for a destructive tool with nuanced resolution modes. It is longer than ideal but every sentence (error codes, response fields, auth requirements) serves a distinct decision or behavioral point.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (resolution, resendScheduled, advanceScheduled, handedBack, markersResolved, barrierStanding), covers auth and error handling, and explains barrier semantics. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 schema already explains the id source, resolution enum meanings, and acknowledgeDuplicateRisk requirement. The description reinforces the consequences of each resolution choice but adds little parameter-level semantics beyond what is already documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb (cancel), a precise resource (webhook log), and a narrow scope (ONE parked/queued/failed log of a drip send whose outcome was unconfirmed). It distinguishes this from generic webhook management and from barrier cancellation, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to omit resolution versus use 'skip' or 'resend', including consequences for the barrier and duplicate risk. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the behavioral decision tree is clear enough that an agent knows how to choose among the resolution modes.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools