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 meaningful context beyond the annotations by disclosing ownership enforcement and that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, which aligns with the annotative hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and explains the soft-delete semantics.
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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: ownership scoping and soft-delete behavior are both useful and non-redundant.
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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the core action, the ownership rule, and the side effect on historical events. It is sufficiently complete given the absence of an output schema and the low parameter complexity.
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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'id', including its type and origin. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states.
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), distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It also adds scope (ownership enforced) and behavior (deactivated not deleted).
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 implies usage (cancel a subscription by id) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention list_subscriptions for viewing subscriptions. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.
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.
The server name 'Dropbox' leads agents to expect file storage operations, but only 5 of 35 tools are Dropbox-specific. The majority are Pipeworx data lookup and prediction market tools, creating a confusing mismatch between server identity and toolset.
Dropbox tools consistently use 'dropbox_verb_noun', but Pipeworx tools mix naming styles: some use 'verb_noun' like 'validate_claim', others use descriptive phrases like 'entity_profile' or 'recent_changes'. The overall set lacks a unified naming convention.
35 tools is high, and the majority are unrelated to the server's name. The Dropbox subset alone is appropriately scoped with 5 tools, but the inclusion of 30 misc data tools makes the set feel bloated and unfocused for a server purportedly dedicated to Dropbox.
For the Dropbox domain, the tools cover only basic operations (create folder, download, list, search, metadata) missing update, delete, share. For the Pipeworx domain, the toolset is extensive, but the overall combination lacks completeness for any single coherent purpose.