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 (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral context: the row is deactivated (not deleted) so historical events remain available. This provides transparency about 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, ownership constraint, and behavioral effect.
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 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership, and deactivation behavior. It lacks error handling or success indication, but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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% for the id parameter. The description adds meaning by stating that the id is the subscription id returned by subscribe, providing source context beyond the schema.
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 action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior.
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: ownership is enforced, so only own subscriptions can be canceled. It implies not to use for others' subscriptions and mentions the effect on historical events via recent_alerts.
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 tools are near-duplicates or strongly overlapping: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are only mode/version variants, and discover_tools overlaps with suggest_questions, ai_visibility_check with scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the Polymarket tools with each other. An agent would frequently need a deep read of the descriptions to know which one is truly appropriate.
The naming is almost entirely snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun or domain_noun pattern, e.g. query_layer, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, compare_entities. Minor deviations like entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-first, but the overall pattern is still recognizable and predictable.
34 tools for a server branded 'Arcgis Tallahassee' is far too many, especially since only a handful of them are GIS-related. The rest constitute a large general-purpose Pipeworx data platform, which at this tool count becomes unwieldy and will increase an agent's selection failure rate.
The core read-only GIS flow is covered (search_datasets → layer_info → query_layer), and the Pipeworx side is broad. However, there are notable gaps: no ArcGIS service management, no layer/feature editing, no spatial operations, and no deeper GIS functions. Because the server's stated purpose is ArcGIS-focused, the overall surface is only partially complete relative to that domain.