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?
Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: ownership enforcement and the deactivation (not deletion) effect, which impacts data history. This directly supplements the annotations without contradicting them, giving the agent a complete picture of side effects.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds two essential behavioral caveats. No filler or redundant information; every sentence earns its place.
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 comprehensive annotations and no output schema, this description is fully adequate. It covers the action, ownership rule, and side effects. The absence of return-value details is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' coverage.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', describing it as a UUID returned by subscribe. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus scoring at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.
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 on when to use the tool by explaining the ownership constraint ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the deactivation behavior ('the row is deactivated (not deleted)'). This implicitly guides the user that this tool is appropriate when they want to preserve historical alerts while stopping future ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Descriptions are unusually explicit about when to use each tool (single lookup vs grounded vs deep research), but the set still contains several genuinely overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility, and six polymarket_* tools share the same 'edge/arbitrage' conceptual space. An agent can usually pick the right tool but faces real ambiguity in several clusters.
Names are uniformly snake_case and readable, and there are coherent prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). However the verb placement is inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_compare, layer_info, polymarket_edges), and bet_research sits outside the polymarket_* family despite being a prediction-market tool.
34 tools is well past the 'feels heavy' threshold, and more importantly the set mixes what looks like three different servers: a tiny ArcGIS/Longview GIS slice (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets), a massive general-purpose data-research platform from Pipeworx, and a Polymarket prediction-market toolkit. Most tools earn their place for the platform, but far too few belong to the named domain.
The research surface is remarkably complete: a router, grounded and beta variants, deep multi-source research, claim verification, entity/profile/change resolution, discovery and suggestion helpers, memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts), and feedback — no obvious lifecycle dead ends. Minute gaps exist on the GIS side (no dataset editing, no metadata browsing, no named export/view ops) and a few nooks like screen- leisure tools have no progress/status endpoints, but these are workaroundable.