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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds that rows are 'deactivated (not deleted)' and historical events remain available. This explains the soft-delete behavior beyond 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: one for action, one for side-effect and constraint. No redundant phrasing, front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 mutation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, who can use it, and the effect (soft delete). References to 'recent_alerts' provide helpful linkage.
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 coverage is 100% (single 'id' parameter with description 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'). Description merely references 'id' without adding new semantic detail, meeting baseline but not exceeding.
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?
Description clearly states action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and resource ('subscription'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (which creates) and 'list_subscriptions' (which lists).
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?
States ownership enforcement ('only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing clear context. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings for when-not-to-use, but the restriction is clear and the purpose is well-defined.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but there is potential confusion among the many Polymarket and pipeworx-related tools. The Gong-specific tools are clearly separated.
Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case, others camelCase, and there is inconsistency between groups (e.g., gong_* vs. polymarket_*). However, within each subgroup, naming is consistent.
35 tools is high for coherence. The server covers multiple domains (Gong calls, data research, betting), leading to an overloaded toolset that could be streamlined into fewer, more general tools.
The toolset is comprehensive for its intended use cases, covering Gong call management, a wide array of data lookups, and Polymarket betting analysis. Minor gaps exist, such as limited CRM features beyond calls.