unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the actual mutation semantics: the subscription is deactivated, not deleted, and historical events remain available via recent_alerts. This is valuable behavioral context that the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) do not fully convey.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded first and important constraints following immediately. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what action is performed, the ownership restriction, and the side effect (deactivation vs deletion). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.
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 already fully describes the single id parameter, including that it is a subscription id returned by subscribe. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Cancel'), a specific resource ('subscription'), and the key identifier ('id'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by focusing on cancellation.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to cancel an existing subscription by its id. It also provides a meaningful usage constraint — ownership is enforced, so you can only cancel your own subscriptions.
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.
Several tools have unclear or overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and validate_claim all handle factual lookup/research tasks. The five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also overlap enough that an agent could easily pick the wrong entry point despite verbose descriptions.
All names are snake_case and generally descriptive, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun-first (abn_lookup, entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are used inconsistently. It is readable but not a clean, predictable pattern.
34 tools is far too many for a server named 'Abn Lookup' — most of the surface is a broad data-research platform with prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and web utilities. The count could fit a large platform, but under this server name and with several near-duplicate entry points, it feels bloated.
For a read-only lookup/research server, coverage is strong: ABR lookups, entity resolution, single-query research, grounded verification, deep research, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions are all represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no ACN search-by-name, no order execution), but no core workflow dead-ends.