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 already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context about ownership enforcement and the soft-delete behavior (deactivated, not deleted). This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 efficient sentences front-load the action and then add the key ownership and deactivation details. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.
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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what is canceled, who can cancel, and what happens to historical data. This is complete and well-scoped.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage by describing the id as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description's 'by id' adds no additional semantic value, so it appropriately rests at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions, and adds meaningful detail about deactivation versus deletion.
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 provides clear context: ownership is enforced and only your own subscriptions can be canceled. It also implies when to use recent_alerts for historical access after deactivation, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_subscriptions for finding ids.
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 or unclear purposes, e.g., multiple entity research tools (entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, validate_claim) and several betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread). The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) and generic lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to consistently select the right tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use snake_case verbs (forget, recall, remember), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and many have mixed conventions (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, bet_research). There is no clear verb_noun structure, and the naming style varies widely across the set.
At 22 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server's stated purpose ('Geoboundaries') is severely mismatched with the actual tool set, which covers data retrieval, betting, memory, and more. The number is not excessive for the breadth of functionality, but it feels bloated for a server that should be focused on geographic boundaries.
The server is named 'Geoboundaries' but only provides two boundary-related tools (get_boundaries, get_geometry). The remaining 20 tools are unrelated, covering general data access, betting arbitrage, and memory operations. This leaves massive gaps for the implied domain (no tools for boundary editing, search by location, or other geographic operations) while over-supplying tools for unrelated tasks.