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 discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the deactivation (not deletion) behavior with historical events remaining available. This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false 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 short sentences, each providing essential information: the main action, ownership constraint, and behavioral nuance. No filler or redundant 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?
Given the single-parameter schema, annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is complete. It explains the side effect (non-deletion) and points to recent_alerts for historical visibility, covering all necessary context.
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% and the parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description adds no further parameter details, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings 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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—to cancel a subscription—and notes ownership constraints. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as referencing list_subscriptions to find the id.
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 and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/discovery entry points. Polymarket tools also blur together (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk). While many tools have distinct purposes, these overlapping clusters create real misselection risk.
All names are snake_case but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, search_datasets, validate_claim), some are noun_verb (query_layer, layer_info is noun_noun), and some are single vague words (forget, recall, remember). No consistent verb_prefix or resource_suffix convention, and the mix of meta-tools vs data tools makes the naming feel arbitrary.
34 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Arcgis Lancaster' — only 3 tools relate to GIS. The bulk is an unrelated general-purpose data/prediction-market toolkit, making the count excessive for the apparent scope. Even as a broad data toolset, 34 tools is on the heavy side and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.
The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so completeness is hard to assess and clearly lopsided. GIS functionality has search/query/info but no lifecycle management, while the data side has many query/analysis tools but no create/update/delete operations except for subscriptions and memory. Obvious gaps exist for a 'Lancaster' server (e.g., no layer creation, editing, or spatial analysis tools), and the unrelated tools make the set feel incomplete for any single stated purpose.