shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_cancel_booking

Destructive

Cancel a booking by its booking ID, with an optional cancellation reason and organization ID, to release the reserved asset or kit.

Instructions

Cancel a booking.

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": {
      "bookingId": "<bookingId>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_cancel_booking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orgId`	No	Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace.
`bookingId`	Yes
`cancellationReason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of irreversibility, downstream effects on attached assets, or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The sentence is short and front-loaded with the action, with zero waste. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it earns a middling score rather than a high one.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive mutation with unnamed required parameters, no output schema, and no usage or behavior context, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what happens on success, whether the booking's assets are released, or why this differs from archive/delete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%: bookingId and cancellationReason are undocumented in the schema, and the description adds no meaning for any parameter. With three parameters and low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the verb 'cancel' and the resource 'booking', so the core action is clear. However, it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings like shelf_archive_booking, shelf_delete_booking, or shelf_release_custody, which is exactly where an agent needs disambiguation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not say how cancelling differs from archiving or deleting a booking, nor whether it requires specific booking states, so the agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server