Cancel a pending Google operation before it is dispatched. Use this to stop scheduled actions that have not yet been sent, while already-dispatched actions remain unaffected.
Cancel a pending operation before dispatch. Does not undo an already-dispatched Google action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | ||
| operationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructive behavior via destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying the cancellation window and the irreversible boundary for dispatched actions. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent predict consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the limitation is stated immediately afterward.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with two required parameters and a destructive annotation already provided. The description covers the key behavioral boundary. It does not say how to obtain operationId or describe the return value, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity keep this from being a major gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain accountId or operationId at all. The schema provides the operationId pattern and required fields, but the description contributes no additional parameter meaning or guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a pending operation before dispatch.' It clearly differentiates this from operation_status by focusing on cancellation rather than status checks. The additional caveat about not undoing dispatched actions further sharpens the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when the tool is appropriate: for pending operations before dispatch. It also gives a clear exclusion: it does not undo already-dispatched actions. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like operation_status, but the when/when-not guidance is still clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.