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?
Description discloses soft-delete behavior ('deactivated, not deleted') and ownership enforcement, adding value beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate non-destructive () and idempotent, and description aligns perfectly.
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 with no redundant words. Front-loaded with the core action, then critical behavioral details. Every sentence 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?
The description explains the tool's effect (deactivation) and ownership constraints, sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Lacks error case handling, but adequate for core functionality.
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% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 resource ('subscription'), with a specific verb and object. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on cancellation.
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 specifies ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the soft-delete behavior, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to 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.
Several overlapping clusters exist: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all handle research questions, polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both scan for trading opportunities, and discover_tools/suggest_questions serve similar discovery purposes. The long, use-case-specific descriptions help, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun or noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions, h1b_salary), which is fairly consistent. However, there are deviations: bare verbs like recall/remember/forget/subscribe, noun-only phrases like entity_profile and recent_changes, and the ask_pipeworx_beta suffix variant break the pattern slightly.
34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold, and the server is named 'H1b' while only 3 of the 34 tools relate to H-1B data. The rest is a sprawling mix of data research, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility checks, and unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency — a severe scope mismatch.
As a de facto Pipeworx research platform, the surface is nearly complete: open-ended queries, grounded evidence mode, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. The H-1B sub-domain covers employer, salary, and top-sponsor lookups, though the mention of green cards is a small mismatch since only LCA data is provided.