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?
Aligns with annotations (non-destructive, idempotent) and adds key context: soft-delete behavior and historical data availability. 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 covering purpose, constraint, and side effect. No wasted words, information density is high.
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?
Complete for a simple mutation tool: covers function, ownership, idempotency, impact on data, and relation to other tools. No gaps given annotations and single parameter.
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?
Single parameter 'id' with schema giving type and provenance. Description adds ownership context (must be your subscription), slightly increasing semantic value beyond baseline 3.
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?
Description states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with specific verb and resource. Ownership enforcement and soft-delete behavior distinguish it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.
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?
Explicitly states ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and explains the non-destructive effect (deactivated, not deleted) with a pointer to 'recent_alerts' for historical data.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from job searching to company research to bet analysis. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by one being hallucination-resistant. Memory and subscription tools are clearly separated.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_jobs, validate_claim, subscribe). However, some tools like pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile deviate with noun_noun or proper noun patterns, creating minor inconsistency.
29 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a wide breadth of domains (jobs, company data, betting, memory, monitoring) so each tool earns its place. Slightly over-scoped but reasonable.
The tool set covers many domains but has notable gaps. For jobs, only search/list/get exist (no create/update/delete). For company data, update is missing. For betting, there is analysis but no placement. The set is broad but not deeply complete for any single domain.