signal_subscriptions-stop
Stop a signal subscription
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscriptionId | Yes | The unique identifier of the subscription to stop |
Stop a signal subscription
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscriptionId | Yes | The unique identifier of the subscription to stop |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds no context about what 'stop' actually does (e.g., permanently ends vs. pauses, whether it's reversible). The description is a tautology of the tool name.
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 extremely concise with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. It's appropriately short for a simple tool, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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 simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description fails to explain the essential context: what happens when a subscription is stopped, whether it can be resumed, or how it differs from related operations like 'pause'. This is a significant 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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description of subscriptionId. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clear verb ('Stop') and resource ('signal subscription'), making the basic purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'start' and 'trigger', though it doesn't specify scope or consequences.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions (e.g., active subscription required) or contrast with 'stop' vs 'pause' or 'update' actions.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.