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 adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the soft-delete mechanism ('deactivated not deleted'), ensuring the agent understands side effects. No contradiction with 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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the action, the ownership constraint, and the behavioral side effect. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no fluff.
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?
With one parameter and rich annotations (destructive, idempotent hints), the description covers ownership, deactivation, and the link to recent_alerts. It doesn't mention return values, but the tool's low complexity makes this acceptable.
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 describes the single parameter 'id' as a uuid returned by subscribe, covering 100% of its semantics. The description doesn't add further meaning to the parameter itself, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'cancel' and clearly identifies the resource ('subscription by id'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting the deactivation behavior (not deletion), which is unique among related tools 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 implies when to use the tool (cancel a subscription you own) and references recent_alerts as an alternative for viewing historical events, providing contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with subscribe or list_subscriptions.
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.
The tools span vastly different domains (AI visibility, data querying, prediction markets, GIS) with clear descriptions individually, but the set lacks a coherent focus. An agent looking for ArcGIS functionality would be distracted by many unrelated tools, causing confusion in tool selection.
Most tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are verbs (remember, forget), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info), and some include underscores inconsistently (generate_llms_txt vs. bet_research). The naming feels arbitrary.
With 33 tools, the count is high, but the vast majority are from Pipeworx and unrelated to the server's stated purpose (Arcgis Roanoke). Only 3-4 tools actually relate to GIS. The tool count is extremely inappropriate for the server's focus.
For the implied domain of ArcGIS Roanoke, the tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking CRUD for map layers, spatial queries, or data management. Conversely, the Pipeworx subset is also incomplete on its own (e.g., missing many data sources). The overall surface fails to serve any single domain well.