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?
Annotations indicate this is a write, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description complements this by clarifying that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and that historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts. It also reveals ownership enforcement, which is not captured in 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?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, then detailing constraints and consequences. No filler; every sentence provides essential information.
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 single-parameter mutation, the description covers purpose, ownership, and the soft-delete behavior. Coupled with strong annotations and complete schema, it is fairly complete. It doesn't specify return values or error conditions, but the absence of an output schema and low complexity reduces the burden.
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 documents the id parameter (uuid returned by subscribe), so the description adds little new information about parameters. The schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description's 'by id' reinforces the parameter without adding new semantics.
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 'Cancel a subscription by id,' which clearly specifies the verb (cancel), resource (subscription), and scope (by id). It also adds ownership enforcement, distinguishing it from general subscription management 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?
It provides clear context by stating ownership is enforced and that the subscription is deactivated rather than deleted, implying when to use it (when you want to cancel your own subscription and preserve history). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_subscriptions or explain when not to use it beyond ownership.
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 overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to similar data sources, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The many polymarket tools also blur together despite detailed descriptions.
Most names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, layer_info, pipeworx_trending, recent_changes, and validate_claim follow different stylistic conventions. The pattern is readable but feels like several naming vocabularies were merged.
34 tools is well over the comfortable range and most of them are unrelated to the apparent ArcGIS Johnson City purpose. Only search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer actually serve GIS needs; the remaining 31 tools form a sprawling Pipeworx meta-platform bolted onto the same server.
The ArcGIS portion covers discover-schema-query reasonably well for read-only open data, and the Pipeworx side has broad coverage with subscriptions, memory, feedback, and research workflows. However, the surface is defined by two unrelated domains, making it hard to judge true completeness for any one stated purpose.