Cancel Queued Retries
cancel_queued_retriesDestructive
Authenticated tool for cancelling queued retry jobs for a workspace or destination.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| destinationId | No |
Relin
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveness, but description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'cancelling'. Does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements beyond stating 'Authenticated', or behavior when no jobs exist.
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?
One sentence, 12 words, and front-loaded with 'Authenticated tool'. It is concise but could benefit from more detail without being excessively long.
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?
Given one optional parameter, no output schema, and presence of annotations, the description is minimal. It does not clarify scope (workspace vs destination), effects on retry jobs, or error cases. More context would be needed for an AI agent to use it effectively.
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 0% and the description only mentions 'workspace or destination' without explaining how workspace is specified. The single optional parameter 'destinationId' lacks any description, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the verb ('cancelling') and resource ('queued retry jobs') with scope ('workspace or destination'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_retry_jobs' and 'retry_failed_deliveries'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with related tools like 'retry_failed_deliveries'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_messages`, `list_recent_events`, and `list_message_attempts`, and between `replay_event` and `replay_events`. However, the descriptions generally clarify differences.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_), with consistent snake_case. A few tools like `rotate_endpoint_secret` and `upsert_event_type` deviate but still use verb_noun structure.
Tool Count2/5
With 52 tools, the set is extremely large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, this many tools reduce coherence and make selection more difficult.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering CRUD for most resources, replay, retries, anomaly management, and webhook setup. Minor gaps exist (no delete for destinations, no update for sources), but core workflows are well-supported.