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 critical behavioral details beyond annotations (which include idempotentHint, destructiveHint): it explains that rows are deactivated (not deleted) and that historical events remain accessible via 'recent_alerts.' This provides transparency about side effects and data persistence.
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 core action, and every sentence adds value (ownership, deactivation behavior). No wasted 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral consequences (deactivation, historical availability). It could mention error handling or success confirmation, but is adequate for typical usage.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description does not add semantic value beyond what the schema provides (the id is a uuid from subscribe). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Cancel a subscription by id,' using a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('subscription'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (create) and 'list_subscriptions' (list) by noting ownership enforcement and deactivation rather than deletion, making its 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 explicitly states the ownership constraint ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), which guides when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context of cancellation is clear.
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.
Several tools occupy adjacent territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate, and there are multiple polymarket-related tools. The descriptions are unusually explicit and cross-reference when to use which, which keeps this from scoring lower.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and group into recognizable families (boston_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), giving the set a consistent feel. However, the set mixes verb_noun names, bare verbs like remember/forget, and adjective_noun phrases like recent_changes, so it is not a strict verb_noun pattern throughout.
At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server with the narrow name "Data Boston"—only three tools directly concern Boston data, while the rest cover general research, prediction markets, subscription management, memory, AI visibility, and npm auditing. Most tools have a purpose, but the overall surface is not well-scoped.
For the broad data-access purpose, coverage is strong: routing, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, change tracking, entity resolution, discovery, monitoring, memory, and Boston datasets are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription update operation, no explicit fetch-by-citation tool, and limited boston_recent coverage, but agents can work around them.