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?
Adds key behavioral details beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, row deactivation vs deletion, and impact on historical alerts. No contradiction with annotations; aligns with idempotentHint and destructiveHint.
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 with no wasted words. Front-loads the main action and provides all necessary context efficiently.
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 ownership, behavioral impact (deactivation), and side effects (historical events preserved), fully addressing agent needs.
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 a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 the action ('Cancel a subscription by id'), identifies the resource (subscription), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' through the 'cancel' verb.
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?
Describes ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), which guides when to use. Also explains the effect on historical events, though lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.
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.
Tool purposes are largely distinct across domains (Jira, data queries, prediction markets), but there is overlap within domains, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded and multiple Polymarket edge analysis tools.
Naming mixes multiple conventions: jira_ prefix, pipeworx_ prefix, polymarket_ prefix, and plain verbs (remember, forget, recall). No consistent pattern across the entire set.
34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Jira' which only has 4 Jira-specific tools. The majority are unrelated Pipeworx and Polymarket tools, making the scope bloated.
Jira-specific tools are incomplete (missing create, update, delete). While Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are comprehensive, they are out of place for a Jira server, leaving gaps in its stated purpose.