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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), the description discloses critical behavioral details: ownership enforcement, deactivation (not deletion), and the impact on historical events via recent_alerts. This adds valuable context and fully aligns with the annotation hints.
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 three sentences: the first states the action, the second imposes an ownership constraint, and the third explains the non-destructive side effect. Every sentence provides distinct information, with the purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple single-parameter tool, the description combined with the schema and annotations is fully sufficient. It explains what happens to the row, who can call it, and the relationship to recent_alerts. The lack of an output schema is acceptable here, as the return value is not essential to understanding the tool.
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 single parameter 'id' as a uuid returned by subscribe, achieving 100% coverage. The description only echoes 'by id' without adding extra syntax, format, or examples, so it does not meaningfully augment the schema information. A baseline 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 opens with an explicit action (Cancel) and resource (subscription) plus the key identifier (id), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by using 'cancel' while also adding a scope constraint (only your own), which clarifies its role.
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 indicates when to use the tool (when you want to cancel a subscription) and adds a usage restriction (ownership enforced). It provides context by tying canceling to deactivation and recent_alerts, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use subscribe to create' or 'use list_subscriptions to view'), so it stops short of 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.
Several tools occupy blurred boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to overlapping data pipelines, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in purpose. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read long text to avoid misselection, especially when the three anime-quote tools are surrounded by unrelated tool families.
Most tools use snake_case and many begin with verbs (ask_, search_, resolve_, scan_, compare_, validate_), but several are noun-first or noun-phrase names like entity_profile, bet_research, random_quote, recent_alerts, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. There is no chaotic camelCase/snake_case mix, but the convention is not applied consistently enough for a predictable pattern.
34 tools is heavy for any single-purpose server, and the vast majority have nothing to do with anime quotes—they are Pipeworx data tools, prediction-market tools, subscription tools, memory tools, and AI-audit tools. For a server named animequotes, only random_quote, search_by_anime, and search_by_character fit the stated purpose, making the count wildly disproportionate.
For the apparent anime-quote domain, random_quote, search_by_anime, and search_by_character cover basic lookup but leave notable gaps: no search by quote text, no quote-by-id fetch, no ability to list all series or characters, and no pagination or metadata browsing. The unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, so the anime-quote surface is functional but incomplete.