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?
Annotations indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds ownership enforcement, deactivation rather than deletion, and that historical events remain via 'recent_alerts'. This provides rich behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.
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, front-loaded with action and subject, followed by important behavioral detail. No redundant or unnecessary words.
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?
Describes side effects (deactivation, history kept) and references 'recent_alerts' for context. Lacks return value information, but for a cancellation tool this is a minor gap. Overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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 clear parameter description ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'). Tool description mentions 'by id' but adds no new semantics. 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'subscription'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' by specifying ownership enforcement and the deactivation (not deletion) behavior, with history preserved via '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?
Explicitly says when to use: to cancel a subscription by id. Mentions ownership enforcement, giving clear context. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use or listing alternative tools, but the information is adequate.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct but several ask_pipeworx variants and research tools overlap in purpose, which could lead to agent confusion. The presence of memory and subscription tools adds unrelated functionality.
Naming is inconsistent, mixing snake_case with varying verb patterns (ask, get, search, scan, etc.) and no clear convention. Some tools have descriptive phrases (e.g., generate_llms_txt) further breaking consistency.
34 tools is excessive for a coherent server, covering too many disparate domains (genes, data queries, betting, memory) without clear focus. A gene server should have far fewer tools.
Gene-related tools are complete for basic queries (search, get, resolve), but the server's main purpose (HGNC) is overshadowed by many unrelated Pipeworx tools, creating a mismatch. The overall surface is broad but lacks domain focus.