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?
Beyond annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: ownership enforcement and soft-delete semantics ('deactivated, not deleted'), plus a pointer to where historical events remain visible. This adds meaningful context that annotations alone do not convey.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by essential behavioral details. No extraneous words.
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 tool with rich annotations and clear sibling context, the description fully covers what the agent needs: how to use it, constraints, and side effects. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to elaborate return values.
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 single parameter, including its type and origin ('returned by subscribe'). The description doesn't need to add more; baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('subscription by id'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It clearly states the action's scope and effect.
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 gives clear context: use it to cancel a subscription by id, ownership is enforced, and deactivation preserves history. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but points to recent_alerts for historical events, providing enough guidance.
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 tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve research questions through the same router, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a dense prediction-market cluster. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent choosing between these near-synonyms would frequently need extra reasoning or make the wrong pick.
Names mix product-prefixed verbs (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage), generic verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_alerts). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix convention across the set, making the tool surface feel patchwork rather than systematically named.
With 34 tools, the count is already on the heavy side, but it is especially mismatched with the server name 'Arcgis Puyallup': only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info actually belong to that GIS domain. The rest are a broad Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, so the set feels bloated and off-scope for the apparent purpose.
The ArcGIS read-only surface is minimally reasonable: search, schema inspection, and querying cover basic open-data consumption. The Pipeworx side is quite rich, with memory, subscriptions, lookups, grounded verification, and discovery, but the named GIS domain is thinly served and lacks obvious capabilities like listing all datasets or browsing layers without a keyword. Overall, coverage is uneven and hard to evaluate cleanly because the server mixes two unrelated purposes.