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?
The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing ownership enforcement and the deactivation (vs deletion) behavior. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and provides critical context about side effects and permissions.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by necessary constraints and side effects. No redundant or filler content.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and behavioral effects thoroughly. It also connects to recent_alerts for historical data, which is helpful. Minor omissions like error handling are not critical given the idempotent annotation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter already described as a subscription UUID returned by subscribe. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, 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 tool's action: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It specifies the resource (subscription) and the operation (cancel). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' (creation) and 'list_subscriptions' (listing) by mentioning ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior.
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 provides clear usage context: you can only cancel your own subscriptions, and cancellation deactivates rather than deletes, preserving historical events via recent_alerts. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but these details imply when to use this tool and what to expect.
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 and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and entity_profile all perform data lookups with only subtle differences. discover_tools and suggest_questions also serve similar onboarding/exploration roles.
Tool names are uniformly snake_case and generally follow a verb_noun or noun_phrase pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, query_layer, entity_profile, remember). There is a slight mix between verb-first and noun-first names but no chaotic conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb tense.
At 34 tools, the count is well above the typical 15-25 range for a coherent server. More critically, the server is named 'Arcgis Lakecountyil' but only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) actually relate to ArcGIS; the remaining 31 tools are a broad Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel excessive and unfocused.
For the ArcGIS domain implied by the server name, the surface is barely complete: it offers search, schema inspection, and querying, but no create, update, delete, or management capabilities. Conversely, the Pipeworx side is relatively rich, but that doesn't match the server's stated purpose, leaving the overall set incomplete for its apparent intended use.