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?
Discloses important behaviors beyond the annotations: ownership is enforced, the row is deactivated not deleted, and historical events stay available via recent_alerts. This adds meaningful context that complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.
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, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds distinct value (ownership, non-destructive deactivation). No redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, ownership constraints, side effects, and historical impact. It fully equips the agent to 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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including that it is a uuid returned by subscribe. The description's 'by id' phrasing adds little beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb 'Cancel' with a clear resource 'a subscription by id', which precisely states the tool's function. It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on cancellation.
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 clear context about ownership enforcement (only cancel your own subscriptions) and the non-destructive nature (deactivated, not deleted). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would warrant 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 have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently literally identical, and the polymarket_* family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) all orbit the same prediction-market opportunity space. The descriptions are detailed and do help, but the sheer number of near-synonymous entry points makes misselection likely.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent snake_case, verb-first pattern: ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, query_layer, resolve_entity, search_datasets, validate_claim. Minor deviations exist — the polymarket_* tools are noun-phrase style and a few names like entity_profile, layer_info, and ai_visibility_check are noun-led — but the overall style is uniform enough to be predictable.
34 tools is already in the overstuffed range, but the bigger problem is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS/Chapel Hill identity. The other 31 tools appear to be an unrelated Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription bundle merged into this server, making the count grossly disproportionate to the apparent purpose.
The three GIS tools form a usable read-only search → schema → query workflow, so the ArcGIS domain is not completely absent. However, as a whole the server has no coherent domain to be complete for, and the ArcGIS side lacks broader capabilities like layer enumeration, spatial filters/statistics, or any write/edit operations. For a server named Arcgis Chapelhill, having 31 out-of-scope tools constitutes a major completeness failure.