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?
The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the ownership enforcement rule and the non-destructive behavior ('deactivated, not deleted'). It also explains the impact on historical events, adding valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. This is consistent with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).
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, and every sentence provides meaningful detail. 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core purpose, key constraints (ownership), and side effects (deactivation vs. deletion). It could mention the return value or error conditions, but given the simplicity and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 fully describes the id parameter with 100% coverage, including its source (returned by subscribe). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating 'by id'. Since schema coverage is high, a 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 specific action: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It identifies the resource (subscription) and the method (by id), distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. The ownership constraint adds further precision about the tool's scope.
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 implies usage context: use when you want to cancel your own subscription. It also provides an alternative for historical events via recent_alerts, and warns about ownership enforcement. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against alternative tools like unsubscribe vs. deactivating in another way, but the context is sufficient for typical selection.
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 tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying 5,767 tools with significant functional overlap. Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurred boundaries around edge detection and fill risk. The ArcGIS tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are distinct, but the non-ArcGIS tools dominate and create confusion.
The naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some use bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), and others use descriptive multi-word names (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_competitor_ai_presence, generate_llms_txt). The ask_pipeworx family and polymarket_* family are internally consistent, but the overall set mixes styles without a clear pattern.
34 tools is heavy for a server that appears to be an ArcGIS data server but includes a massive Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market subsystem. The ArcGIS portion only has 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), while the rest form a separate general-purpose research/betting toolkit. The count feels bloated and unfocused relative to the server's stated name.
The ArcGIS surface is incomplete: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer offer no update/create/delete or metadata exploration beyond one layer at a time. The Pipeworx portion is broad but lacks clear lifecycle coverage for subscriptions (create/cancel works, but no update), and the memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are peripheral. The set feels like an accidental aggregation of unrelated domains rather than a complete surface for one purpose.