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?
Annotations are already present, but the description adds valuable context: ownership enforcement, deactivation vs deletion, and that historical events remain available via recent_alerts. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, each essential: purpose, ownership, and deactivation nuance. No wasted words, efficient and front-loaded.
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 required parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully covers purpose, side effects, and sibling relation to recent_alerts. Complete enough.
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 baseline is 3. The description repeats that the subscription is identified by id but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema.
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 verb 'cancel' and the resource 'subscription by id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying ownership enforcement and the deactivation (not deletion) behavior.
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 says ownership is enforced, so the tool is only for your own subscriptions. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and sufficient.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) can cause confusion due to overlapping functionality. Some tools like 'seattle_recent' are vague.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., validate_claim, resolve_entity). However, a few like 'seattle_recent' and 'pipeworx_trending' deviate slightly, and 'recent_alerts' mixes noun_verb.
34 tools is excessive for a single server, covering data retrieval, prediction markets, Seattle data, memory, subscriptions, and utility. The broad scope feels bloated and overwhelming, making it hard for agents to find the right tool.
The server covers a wide array of domains with good depth in data retrieval and prediction markets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., Seattle tools limited to four datasets, no other city data), but overall it addresses most use cases its tools suggest.