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?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that ownership is enforced, the row is deactivated rather than deleted, and historical events remain available via recent_alerts. This significantly enhances the agent's understanding of side effects and access control.
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?
Three concise sentences, each adding essential information: what it does, who can do it, and the deactivation behavior. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With one simple parameter, rich annotations, and a clear description of side effects and constraints, the description is fully adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.
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 for the single parameter, describing it as a UUID returned by subscribe. The tool description adds no further parameter details, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions, and the ownership detail adds further specificity.
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 clearly implies usage for canceling subscriptions and notes ownership constraints. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the mention of recent_alerts hints at a rationale for deactivation over deletion, providing usable guidance.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and deep_research also overlaps with them. The Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have fuzzy boundaries. An agent could easily pick the wrong meta-tool or duplicate functionality.
All names are snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (get_item, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), some are adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts), and a few are single verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe). This is readable but not a consistent convention.
With 36 tools, this is far too many for a server named 'hackernews'. The bulk of the tools concern Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions — unrelated to the server's apparent purpose. Many of these could be split into separate servers, and the HN-specific functionality would be better served by a focused set of ~5-8 tools.
For the Hacker News domain implied by the server name, the surface is incomplete: there are read-only tools (search, top stories, item/comments) but no write functionality (submit, comment, vote) and no user profile access. The broader data-research capabilities are fairly comprehensive, but that does not rescue the server's coherence given its stated name.