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?
Beyond the annotations (which indicate idempotent and non-destructive), the description reveals that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and that historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts. This adds critical behavioral context not captured in structured fields.
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 long, each serving a distinct purpose: first stating the action and input, then explaining ownership and side effects. No wasted 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, ownership constraint, and post-effect (deactivation vs deletion). It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', describing it as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The tool description reinforces this by referencing the source of the id, but adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' This directly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like subscribe, list_subscriptions, 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?
It clearly states ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing a precondition. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent.
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 intentionally overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with the beta variant explicitly matching stable behavior right now. entity_profille/recent_changes/compare_entities and the multiple polymarket scanning tools also cover closely related jobs, so an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong variant.
All tools use lowercase snake_case, which is a consistent base style. However, the naming grammar is mixed: proper verb_noun tools like compare_entities and validate_claim sit beside noun-phrase/domain tools like housing_market_screen and polymarket_edges, plus the awkward compound case_shiller_metro_compare. The housing_ and polymarket_ prefixes help, but the pattern is not uniform enough for a 5.
41 tools far exceeds the 25+ threshold and the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools pertyain to Polymarket, npm scanning, llms.txt generation, and memory, which have little to do with Housing Intel, so the count is not earned by the server's stated domain.
For the housing domain specifically, the coverage is strong: market snapshot, affordability, employment, mortgage history, rental/property analysis, metro demand, signal scanning, and Case-Shiller comparisons cover the main data needs. The generic ask_pipeworx and deep_research tools also backfill specialized queries. The weakness is scope blur, not obvious missing housing operations.