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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. Description adds value beyond annotations: ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior. No contradictions.
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 fluff, all information is relevant and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, ownership, effect on data, and links to related tool recent_alerts.
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 has 100% coverage with description for 'id'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond confirming it's the id from subscribe, which is minimal added value.
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 clearly states the action 'cancel' and the resource 'subscription by id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions, and adds ownership enforcement context.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on ownership (only cancel your own) and effect (deactivation not deletion). Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research overlap with the base router, and the polymarket_* family contains several scanning/arbitrage tools with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily call the wrong variant.
There are coherent clusters (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, bare Adzuna verbs), but the overall server mixes snake_case, bare nouns, compound names, and -_prefixed names without a unifying convention. Some tools like compare_entities, entity_profile, and scan_dependency follow a descriptive style that does not match the verb_ noun pattern used elsewhere.
37 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the server named 'Adzuna' includes far more than job-search functionality: prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, AI visibility probes, and llms.txt generation. The count feels like a bundled mega-platform rather than a focused job-data server.
For a job-search-focused server, the Adzuna tools cover search, categories, history, regional stats, salary histograms, and top companies, but there is no direct job-detail or application workflow. For the broader Pipeworx research surface, coverage is very thorough, so the main completeness problem is the lack of a clear unified domain rather than a specific missing operation.