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 annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and historical events remain available via recent_alerts. This provides useful behavioral context not covered by 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?
Two sentences with no redundant information. The most critical information (action, ownership, effect) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral impact. No gaps remain.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the 'id' parameter is a subscription uuid returned by subscribe, which provides meaningful context beyond the schema's description.
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 the resource ('subscription'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (create) and 'list_subscriptions' (list) by specifying that it cancels a specific subscription by its ID.
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 indicates when to use the tool ('Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing important context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools provide implicit contrast.
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 Pipeworx tools overlap significantly (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all query similar data). Close CRM tools are distinct but the overall set mixes two domains, causing confusion.
Tool names mix snakes (close_get_lead), lowercase (ask_pipeworx), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the entire set.
37 tools is excessive for a focused server. The combination of Close CRM and Pipeworx data services creates scope creep; many tools could be separate servers.
Pipeworx tools offer extensive data coverage, but Close CRM lacks update/delete operations for leads, contacts, and opportunities, leaving basic CRUD gaps.