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?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: ownership is enforced, and the row is deactivated (not deleted) to preserve historical events. This goes beyond the safety profile already provided by annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured without redundant words.
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 tool with one fully documented parameter, strong annotations, and no complex return values, the description is complete. It explains the ownership constraint and the soft-delete behavior, and references 'recent_alerts' to tie into the ecosystem, making it sufficient for an agent to use 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?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter ('id') with a description ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing 'by id', which does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.
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 (subscriptions), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by being the inverse operation. It is specific and 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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to cancel your own subscription, with ownership enforcement) and clarifies that it deactivates rather than deletes, which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple tool.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. Some overlap exists in the Polymarket-related tools, but each has a specific focus (arbitrage detection, edge scanning, persistence tracking, fill risk, cross-venue spread). The two ask_pipeworx variants are similar but differentiated by hallucination resistance.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a consistent pattern of verb_noun or noun_verb. Examples include 'ai_visibility_check', 'bet_research', 'entity_profile', and 'validate_claim'. There are no mixed conventions or erratic naming.
The server is named 'Corporate Apology' but contains 31 tools, only one of which (corporate_apology_generate) relates to apologies. The vast majority are unrelated data retrieval and analysis tools, making the count excessive and poorly scoped for the server's stated purpose.
For a server focused on corporate apologies, the only tool is corporate_apology_generate. There are no tools for analyzing apology impact, managing crisis response, or tracking apologies. The tool surface is severely incomplete relative to the server's name.