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?
The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing ownership enforcement and the deactivation (soft-delete) behavior, explaining that historical events remain available via recent_alerts. This is consistent with the annotations (destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) and adds valuable side-effect context.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds meaningful information: the cancel action, ownership constraint, and the deactivation effect. No fluff 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its constraints, and the consequence for historical data. It even references recent_alerts to close the loop on data availability, making it self-contained.
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 fully describes the id parameter (uuid, returned by subscribe) with 100% coverage. The description only repeats 'by id' without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline score 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 a specific action and target: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by focusing on the cancellation action, and further clarifies the soft-delete behavior vs. hard deletion.
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 implies the correct usage context (cancelling a subscription) and adds an important constraint: 'you can only cancel your own subscriptions.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full explicit guidance.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and also multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Descriptions try to differentiate but the boundaries are unclear, causing confusion.
Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, query_layer), some use descriptive phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. The variety makes it hard to predict tool names.
33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Arcgis Fairfield', as most tools are unrelated to GIS or Fairfield (e.g., npm dependency checks, prediction markets, AI visibility). The tool count severely mismatches the server's purported scope.
The server's stated purpose is ArcGIS Fairfield, but only 3 tools (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) relate to that domain. Critical GIS operations like updating features or managing services are missing, while the vast majority of tools are for other domains.