Wise MCP Server

Cancel a payment

cancel_transfer

Destructive

Cancel a transfer that is still awaiting payment; once Wise receives the funds, it can no longer be cancelled.

Instructions

Cancel a transfer that has not been paid yet (status incoming_payment_waiting). Once Wise has the money it can no longer be cancelled here. A cancelled transfer cannot be restarted, only set up again.

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_transfer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The transfer id.
`confirm`	No	Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the genuinely useful facts that the operation is irreversible ('a cancelled transfer cannot be restarted') and gated on payment status. It does not mention the confirmation requirement enforced by the confirm parameter, which is the one behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded with the eligibility condition, then the boundary, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries distinct information and none repeats the annotations verbatim.

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 two-parameter destructive action with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, failure boundary, and irreversibility. The only missing piece is what the caller should expect on a rejected cancellation or how confirm interacts with the call.

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%, so both id and confirm are documented in the schema itself, including the 'set true only when the user asked for exactly this action' guidance. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the id must reference a transfer in incoming_payment_waiting; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (cancel a transfer) plus the exact eligibility condition (status incoming_payment_waiting). No sibling tool performs cancellation, and the description makes the operation unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when ('has not been paid yet') and the when-not ('once Wise has the money it can no longer be cancelled here'). It hints at the fallback ('only set up again') but does not name create_transfer as the alternative, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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