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?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement (auth model) and deactivation instead of deletion (data retention semantics). These details give the agent a clear picture of side effects and constraints, complementing the official 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action; the second adds critical behavioral nuance. No redundant or verbose phrasing.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, who can use it, and the side effect on historical data. It references recent_alerts, providing a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 documents the single parameter 'id' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond repeating 'by id.' The baseline of 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not introduce new parameter meaning.
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 a subscription by id.' It specifies the resource (subscription) and adds distinguishing details: ownership enforcement and deactivation rather than deletion. This differentiates it from siblings like subscribe and recent_alerts.
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 (canceling your own subscription) and the effect on historical data, suggesting a relationship to recent_alerts. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_subscriptions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and several Polymarket analysis tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) blur together. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large set of data-query and prediction-market tools with unclear boundaries.
All tool names use snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some are command-style (query_layer, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (layer_info, entity_profile), and others are bare verbs (remember, forget). The naming is readable but not consistently patterned.
34 tools is too many for a server named 'Arcgis Allegheny', especially since only three tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to ArcGIS at all. The bulk of the tools address unrelated domains like Pipeworx data lookups and Polymarket betting, making the count excessive for the apparent purpose.
For a server focused on ArcGIS Allegheny County data, the surface is severely incomplete: only three read-only tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) cover the domain, and they lack operations like adding, updating, or deleting features. The remaining 31 tools are unrelated to GIS, so the server fails to provide a coherent or complete toolset for its stated purpose.