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 already indicate non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: ownership is enforced, and the row is deactivated (not deleted) preserving historical events. This enriches beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second covers ownership and the non-destructive behavior.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core operation, side effects (deactivation vs deletion), and the ownership constraint. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 provides 100% coverage for the 'id' parameter, describing it as a uuid returned by subscribe. The description merely says 'by id' without adding further semantic detail, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action (cancel) and the resource (subscription by id). It 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?
It clearly implies when to use (to cancel a subscription) and adds context about ownership constraints and the availability of historical events via recent_alerts. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.
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_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all handle natural-language data queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently identical to ask_pipeworx. discover_tools and suggest_questions both exist to help agents find tools, and the five Polymarket tools have subtle, hard-to-distinguish boundaries. Agents will frequently select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Tool names are mostly lowercase snake_case with verb-noun structure (query_layer, search_datasets, resolve_entity), which is consistent and readable. However, some names break the pattern (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback) and the prefixes are not uniform. Still, the convention is predictable enough to navigate.
34 tools is a heavy count, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated 'Arcgis Lacounty' purpose. Only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) serve the named GIS domain, while the rest form a sprawling collection of data-lookup, prediction-market, and utility tools. This is a severe scope mismatch.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for an ArcGIS LA County server: no layer listing beyond keyword search, no metadata endpoints, no editing, no spatial operations. The broader tool set lacks a coherent domain, making coverage impossible to assess beyond noting the glaring absence of core GIS functionality.