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?
The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it explains that rows are deactivated (not deleted) and ownership is enforced. This aligns with the non-destructive and idempotent hints, and fully discloses the behavioral traits.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then adds critical behavioral context, making it highly efficient.
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?
The description covers purpose, ownership constraint, deactivation behavior, and linkage to 'recent_alerts' for historical data. For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is fully complete.
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 has 100% documentation coverage for the lone 'id' parameter, describing it as a UUID from subscribe. The tool description reiterates 'by id' but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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') and the resource (subscription), with additional context about deactivation vs deletion. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'recent_alerts'.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to cancel subscriptions) and implies when not to (not for deleting, only own subscriptions). It does not explicitly list alternatives but provides sufficient context through ownership and deactivation details.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly the same question-answering niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by its own description), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim are easy to confuse. The polymarket suite also has overlapping edge/arbitrage/fill-risk boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve onboarding. The verbose descriptions help, but the set as a whole creates real misselection risk.
Most tools follow clear snake_case verb_noun or domain-prefix patterns (auctions_search, polymarket_edges, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget). Minor inconsistencies exist: auction_lot_details is singular while the auction group is plural, and polymarket_edges versus polymarket_edge_tracker breaks the prefix pattern slightly. Overall the naming is predictable and readable.
36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Gov Auctions': only 5 tools actually concern auctions, while the rest are general Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and utility tools. Even as a general data platform, the count is heavy and includes several overlapping meta-tools.
For the auction-specific surface, the set covers search, lot details, closing-soon, historical sold prices, and data coverage, which is a solid read-only lifecycle. The main gaps are non-critical: no auction-category browser, no auction-specific alert/subscription type, and no bidding workflow. The broad research/esolution tools fill in most adjacent data needs even if they dilute the server's stated focus.