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?
Beyond annotations (non-read, non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds ownership enforcement and deactivation vs deletion, which are critical for correct invocation.
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, front-loaded with purpose, each adding value. No redundancy or unnecessary 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership constraint, side effects, and historical data retention completely.
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 already documents the single parameter with description. The description only adds 'by id', confirming the parameter's role, but doesn't add significant new meaning.
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 itself 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?
The description implies when to use: to cancel your own subscriptions. It mentions ownership enforcement and the deactivation behavior, but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives.
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 11 fb_* Facebook tools are clearly separated by resource (account vs campaign vs adset) and action (list vs get vs create), and the Pipeworx research tools each have distinct roles (router, grounded, profile, compare, research). However, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and deep_research overlap in routing/fan-out behavior, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-identical in purpose, creating some ambiguity.
The 11 fb_* tools follow a consistent fb_verb_noun pattern (except fb_get_campaign vs fb_list_*), but the remaining 25+ tools mix verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and generic names (forget, recall, remember). Pipeworx tools use verb_noun mostly consistently (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, resolve_entity) but the overall set blends two naming cultures without a unifying prefix or pattern.
36 tools is on the heavy side for one server. The Facebook ads domain only needs ~11 tools, while the rest are a sprawling Pipeworx research/meta platform (memory, subscription, prediction-market, web-tooling, AI-visibility) that feels like several servers merged into one. Each area is internally coherent, but as a single MCP server the count is bloated.
The Facebook ads surface covers list accounts/campaigns/adsets and read campaigns/insights, but notably lacks create/update/delete operations for campaigns and adsets, so the ad-management workflow has dead ends. The Pipeworx research side is extremely complete for data lookup (router, grounded, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, verification), though the memory/subscription tools introduce a separate domain that is only thinly supported.