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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical context: the row is deactivated (not deleted), ensuring historical events remain available via recent_alerts. Also clarifies ownership enforcement, going beyond the annotations.
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 zero waste. Front-loaded with the action, followed by two important behavioral notes (ownership and deactivation). No extraneous content.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, a key constraint, and the post-effect (deactivation preserving history). It doesn't describe the return value, but given the simplicity, the description is largely 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with 'id' described as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description restates 'by id' but does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 starts with 'Cancel a subscription by id', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'. It also mentions ownership enforcement, adding scope.
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 mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') as a constraint, and the deactivation note implies a safe way to cancel while preserving history. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.
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 heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same data sources, and the Polymarket family (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has blurred boundaries. Agents would struggle to pick the right one without reading every description carefully.
Naming is mostly snake_case but follows no consistent verb_noun pattern. Verbs vary widely (ask_, get_, list_, search_, compare_, scan_, validate_, remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, discover, generate, resolve, suggest) and many tools are bare nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges). The inconsistency makes the set feel ad hoc.
34 tools is on the heavy side, and the count is inflated by many near-duplicate data-router and prediction-market tools. The server is named 'iconify' yet only 3 of 34 tools actually relate to icons, indicating poor scoping for the stated purpose.
For the icon domain, the surface is minimal (list, search, get) with no create/update/delete. For the broader data/prediction-market domain, there are significant gaps in lifecycle coverage (e.g., subscriptions have create/cancel but no pause/resume, and the memory tools lack namespacing). The mixed focus means no single domain is fully covered.