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?
Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: ownership is enforced, and the row is deactivated rather than deleted, preserving historical events via recent_alerts. This complements the annotations and clarifies the side effects of the operation.
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 long, front-loading the core action and then adding a crucial caveat about ownership and deactivation. Every sentence carries necessary information, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given that this is a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and robust annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation, ownership constraint, and state change. It does not address edge cases like invalid IDs or return values, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.
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 a thorough description of the 'id' parameter (UUID returned by subscribe) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond referring to 'id', so it remains at the baseline for schema-heavy 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 action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and identifies the resource (subscription). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by mentioning ownership enforcement and the deactivation (not deletion) behavior, making its unique purpose unambiguous.
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 the primary use case (canceling a subscription) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The ownership note ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') provides some context, but there is no explicit comparison with sibling tools or exclusion conditions.
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 ArcGIS tools (query_layer, layer_info, search_datasets) are clearly distinct, but the Pipeworx family has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools can all appear as plausible entry points for a similar data lookup task. The memory and subscription tools are well separated, but the router-style tools create real ambiguity.
Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case names with a verb-first pattern (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, subscribe, remember) or clear noun descriptors (entity_profile, layer_info, polymarket_edges). A few names are more cryptic (recall, forget, resolve_entity) but they still follow the same style. No mixed camelCase or inconsistent separators.
34 tools is well beyond what the apparent ArcGIS Washington County purpose needs; only three tools actually concern GIS data. The rest are a broad Pipeworx research suite, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and AI-visibility probes. This makes the surface feel like two or three unrelated servers grafted together rather than one scoped package.
For the ArcGIS slice, you can discover, inspect, and query layers, but there is no write or create capability, no field-wise editing, no map/feature export, and no feature-level CRUD. The Pipeworx data side is more comprehensive, but the overall server confuses its purpose. The mixed-domain coverage leaves the GIS part only a thin slice of the offered features.