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 behavioral traits beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, row deactivation rather than deletion, and preservation of historical events via recent_alerts. This adds substantial context that the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent) do not fully capture.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: core action, ownership restriction, and deactivation semantics. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, constraints, and downstream effects. An agent has enough information to know when to invoke it and what will happen.
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 covers the id parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description only repeats 'by id' without adding new semantic detail, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior, which are unique to unsubscribe compared to subscribe or 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?
Provides clear context on when to use by explaining ownership restriction and the consequence that historical events remain available via recent_alerts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though the context is sufficient for a straightforward action.
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.
ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes that require reading long descriptions to separate. The server name promises ArcGIS Dukes County but most tools are unrelated, making the overall selection space confusing.
Most names are snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some noun-ish (entity_profile, layer_info, pipeworx_trending), some bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), and some long compounds (polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_competitor_ai_presence). Readable overall, but no strong consistent pattern.
34 tools is heavy, and only three (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to the server's apparent ArcGIS Dukes County purpose. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx/prediction-market/memory/utility toolkit, creating a severe scope mismatch with the server's name.
For the named Dukes County GIS domain, the surface is minimal—dataset discovery, schema, and queries—with no spatial operations or editing, though read-only access may be acceptable. For the broader Pipeworx functionality it is fairly comprehensive, but that is not what the server name advertises, leaving the set incomplete relative to its apparent identity.