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 annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical context: 'The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.' This fully discloses the soft-deletion behavior and side-effects.
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 concise sentences front-load the action ('Cancel a subscription by id.') and add only essential behavioral and constraint information. 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 purpose, ownership constraint, and deactivation behavior completely. No gaps remain given the tool's low complexity.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the required 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.
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 'Cancel a subscription by id', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings 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 mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), giving clear context about usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest 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.
Multiple natural-language query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, suggest_questions) have heavily overlapping purposes, and the descriptions rely on subtle caveats to differentiate them. Similarly, entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence blur boundaries. Only the four check_* tools (email/ip/phone/url) are cleanly distinct.
There are some consistent prefixes (check_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*) but the overall set mixes verb_noun, noun_verb, and standalone adjectival names (deep_research, entity_profile, bet_research, validate_claim, recent_changes). The pattern is readable within families but chaotic across the whole surface, with no unified convention.
35 tools is excessive for a server branded 'Ipqualityscore', especially since only 4 tools actually serve that fraud-checking domain. The rest sprawls into general data research, prediction-market analysis, memory management, subscriptions, and npm dependency scanning — a far larger scope than the name implies. This is a scattershot collection rather than a coherent offering.
The IPQS core domain is thin (only email, IP, phone, URL checks) and missing common fraud-screening operations like transaction scoring or domain reputation. Conversely, the Pipeworx side is over-complete with redundant query paths, while unrelated subsystems (memory, subscriptions, feedback) create dead ends that don't serve the server's apparent purpose. The lack of a clear domain makes genuine completeness impossible to assess or claim.