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?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals ownership enforcement, that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, and that historical events remain available. These are non-obvious traits not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The description is consistent with the annotations, with 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential transaction details. No redundant words, no repetition of annotations, and every clause adds meaningful information. Excellent conciseness.
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 mutation tool, the description covers the action, authorization boundary, and side effects (soft delete, historical data retention). With annotations providing safety and idempotency hints, and no output schema required, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.'). The tool description merely restates 'by id' without adding new format, constraints, or behavioral details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and there is no added value from the description.
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.' It specifies the resource (subscription) and the operation (cancel), and the ownership enforcement distinguishes it from other subscription-related tools like subscribe or list_subscriptions. The purpose is 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 implies usage: this is the tool to cancel a subscription you own. It explicitly notes ownership enforcement, which tells users they cannot cancel others' subscriptions. It also clarifies that cancellation is a soft delete, so historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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 overlapping functionality (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the set includes both food-specific feeds and general data tools without clear separation. Distinguishing between them, especially for an agent, would be difficult.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are snake_case (list_feeds, read_feed), others are lowercase with underscores (ai_visibility_check), and many are multi-word without clear structure (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 34 tools, the count is high, and most tools are unrelated to the server's stated purpose of 'Food Feeds'. The inclusion of general-purpose Pipeworx tools (e.g., deep_research, entity_profile, polymarket tools) makes the set bloated and unfocused.
For the food feeds domain, only three tools (list_feeds, read_feed, fetch_feed) are relevant, which is incomplete. The server lacks tools for searching, subscribing, or managing feeds. The presence of many unrelated tools does not compensate for this gap.