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?
Description adds ownership enforcement and deactivation (not deletion) behavior beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, but the description provides important context that it's a soft cancellation.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with core action, no filler. 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?
For a one-parameter tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, ownership constraints, and side effects.
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% with adequate description for the single parameter. Description does not add extra detail beyond what schema provides, so baseline score of 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?
Description clearly states the action ('Cancel a subscription by id'), specifies the resource ('subscription'), and distinguishes from siblings 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?
Mentions ownership enforcement ('only cancel your own subscriptions'), guiding when to use. Implies when not to use (others' subscriptions) and explains non-destructive behavior vs alternatives.
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 have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all cover prediction-market analysis with blurry boundaries. The server name 'Commons Wikimedia' also clashes with 30+ Pipeworx tools, making the overall purpose ambiguous. Only the handful of Commons-specific tools (category_members, file_info, file_revisions, random_image, search) are clearly distinct.
All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a noun_phrase pattern (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes), but verb styles are inconsistent: some are bare verbs (search, recall, subscribe), some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity, validate_claim), and several are noun-only (category_members, file_info, pipeworx_feedback). The style is readable but not predictable, mixing action-first and object-first conventions.
36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Commons Wikimedia' — the vast majority belong to the Pipeworx data platform, not Wikimedia Commons. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many,' and the scope mismatch between the server name and the actual toolset makes the abundance feel even more unjustified.
For 'Commons Wikimedia,' the surface is severely incomplete: there is no upload, no category tree navigation, no file download, and no structured search beyond full-text. For the Pipeworx domain, coverage is broad but indirect — most data access funnels through aggregate/meta tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, deep_research) rather than direct per-source tools, leaving gaps for granular lookups and leaving the Commons tools stranded with no real integration.