Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Simplepush MCP Server

Simplepush MCP Server

Official
by simplepush
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Cancel a task, subtask or group

cancel_task

Withdraw a sent task, subtask, or group with its id to stop pending recipients from responding; existing answers remain intact.

Instructions

Withdraw something sent earlier: pass a task_id (tsk_...), subtask_id (sub_...) or group_id (grptsk_...). Pending recipients see it as canceled and can no longer answer; answers already given stay. Canceling a group cancels every still-pending instance and reports how many were already finished. Not undoable.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe tsk_ / sub_ / grptsk_ id to cancel.
noteNoShort explanation shown to recipients.
reasonNoWhy: plain withdrawal (default), the answer was obtained elsewhere, or a newer task replaces it.
superseded_byNoWith reason `superseded`: the tsk_ id of the replacing task.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of side-effect disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: pending recipients see the item as canceled, prior answers remain, group cancellation cascades to still-pending instances and reports a finished count, and the action is irreversible. These are substantive behavioral details beyond the schema.

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?

Three short sentences carry the action, resource types, key side effects, and an irreversibility warning without repetition. The most load-bearing information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main semantics: what gets canceled, what happens to recipients, group behavior, and non-reversibility. It stops short of specifying exact return/error behavior, but the core call decision is well supported.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds extra meaning by explaining the significance of id types, especially that canceling a group_id cancels all still-pending instances and reports already-finished ones. The note, reason, and superseded_by parameters are left to the already-complete 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 opens with a specific action, "Withdraw something sent earlier," and names the exact resource forms accepted: tsk_, sub_, and grptsk_ ids. This clearly identifies the tool as a cancellation operation and distinguishes it from siblings like send_task and append_subtask.

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 a clear when-to-use context: withdraw something already sent, and it clarifies that pending recipients can no longer answer while existing answers are preserved. It also warns that the operation is not undoable, which is a useful usage caution, though it does not name explicit alternative tools.

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