ausca_cancel_invocationRequest bounded cancellation of one invocation. Cancellation is idempotent, may be refused, and may lose a race with terminal completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invocation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / $defs / ReceiptReference / properties / public_urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Unguessable public verification page for the privacy-bounded hash-only proof. It reveals the receipt digest, service, public price, and completion time, but not input bytes, output bytes, or their content digests.",
+ "format": "uri",
+ "maxLength": 2048,
+ "pattern": "^https://[^?#]+/r/[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable nuance by saying cancellation may be refused and may lose a race with terminal completion, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 sentences with no fluff. The core operation is front-loaded, and each clause adds meaningful information, making excellent use of limited space.
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?
With one parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key caveats: idempotency, refusal, and race with terminal completion. It doesn't explain how a refused or lost cancellation is reported, but the output schema likely covers that.
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?
The single parameter invocation_id has no schema description (0% coverage), but the phrase 'of one invocation' links it to the target of the operation. The description doesn't elaborate on format or constraints, though the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory.
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 names the verb ('request bounded cancellation') and resource ('one invocation'), clearly stating the operation. There are no other cancellation siblings, so the lack of explicit differentiation from alternatives is acceptable, but it doesn't go out of its way to distinguish itself.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as prerequisites or context (e.g., only for in-progress invocations). The behavioral caveats are informative but don't help an agent decide between this tool and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clearly separate operation within its domain: inbox read/list/attachment/status/delete are all distinct, browser connect/status/close are unambiguous, and offer/invocation tools each have unique responsibilities. Descriptions reinforce the boundaries, so an agent should not struggle to select the right tool.
Naming is divided into two patterns: resource-first names like ausca_agent_inbox_read and ausca_browser_session_close, versus verb-first names like ausca_get_invocation and ausca_search_offers. Within the inbox and browser groups, endings mix nouns (messages, status, attachment) and verbs (delete, read, connect), making the convention inconsistent across the set.
13 tools is well within the ideal range for a multi-domain server, and each tool covers a meaningful operation without redundancy. The count supports inbox, browser session, and offer/invocation workflows without feeling bloated or sparse.
The inbox and browser-session clusters cover their core lifecycles well, and the offer/invocation cluster supports search, detail, preparation, state read, and cancellation. The main gap is the lack of an explicit submit/execute invocation tool, though invocation submission may be intentionally externalized; this is a minor workaround rather than a fatal dead end.