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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: 'deactivated (not deleted),' ensuring agent understands persistence of historical events. Ownership enforcement is a key behavioral trait. Annotations (destructiveHint: false) align with description, no contradiction.
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, all essential: action, ownership rule, and deactivation behavior. No wasted words, efficiently conveys all needed info.
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 param and no output schema, description covers purpose, ownership, and deactivation semantics. No missing critical information.
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?
Single parameter 'id' already fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds value by noting 'returned by subscribe,' linking to related tool. Baseline 3, incremental value gives 4.
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?
Clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id.' Identifies specific verb (cancel) and resource (subscription by id). Distinguishes from sibling tools 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?
Explicitly states 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions,' guiding when to use. Also clarifies that deactivation differs from deletion, providing context on effects. No alternative tools mentioned but sufficient for this 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.
Although many tools are individually well-described, there are several overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple polymarket edge/arbitrage tools, and AI-visibility checks vs their competitor-comparison wrapper. An agent can easily pick the wrong one because the boundaries (beta vs stable, grounded vs routed, edge vs arbitrage) are subtle despite the verbose descriptions.
The set is consistently snake_case and mostly readable, so naming is not chaotic. However, the pattern is mixed: some tools use entur_/polymarket_/pipeworx_ prefixes, others are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending). The ask_pipeworx family also doesn't follow the pipeworx_ prefix convention used by neighboring tools.
34 tools is well past the healthy range for a focused MCP server, and only three tools relate to the Entur transport domain implied by the server name. The other 31 tools form a separate, broad data/prediction-market product that appears bolted on, making the count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
The Entur transport subset has stops search, departures, and journey planning, but misses common public-transport needs such as disruptions, service alerts, and fare/ticket information. The broader tool set is extensive but lacks a single coherent domain to be complete against, leaving the overall surface scattered and hard to trust as an integrated whole.