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 discloses that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, which adds meaning beyond destructiveHint=false in annotations. It also clarifies ownership enforcement. This goes beyond the minimal annotation context, though it doesn't cover idempotency or error behavior.
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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action, the second provides crucial behavioral details. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with available annotations, the description covers the core behavior, ownership rules, and post-cancel state. It doesn't mention return values or error cases, but these are less critical for a simple cancel operation.
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 schema already fully describes the id parameter (100% coverage), including its source from subscribe. The description simply says 'by id' without adding new syntax or format details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 begins with 'Cancel a subscription by id,' which clearly identifies the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by describing the cancellation semantics and ownership constraint.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to cancel a subscription) and includes important constraints (ownership enforcement, soft-delete effect). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.
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 distinct purposes, but the three 'ask_pipeworx' variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are highly similar and likely cause confusion. Additionally, the toolset mixes airport-specific tools with unrelated financial and research tools, creating ambiguity about when to use which.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use descriptive snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some include brand names (pipeworx_feedback). No clear pattern emerges across the 34 tools.
34 tools is excessive for a server named 'airports'—only 3 tools directly relate to airports (search_airports, get_airport, calculate_distance). The majority are unrelated utilities (financial, prediction markets, memory), making the scope far too broad and unfocused.
The server severely lacks completeness for its stated airport domain: there are no tools for flights, airlines, runways, or real-time data. The other included domains (e.g., financial, prediction markets) are also incomplete, with e.g., only partial coverage of company data and no update/delete operations.