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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: ownership is enforced, the row is deactivated rather than deleted, and historical events remain accessible. This aligns with destructiveHint:false and idempotentHint:true, but does not contradict any annotation.
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 concise, with two clear sentences. It front-loads the action and then provides two important behavioral caveats without any unnecessary fluff.
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?
Given the simple tool (one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema), the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, the ownership constraint, the non-destructive nature, and the historical events availability. Nothing essential is missing.
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 full coverage for the 'id' parameter, describing it as a 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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 clearly states the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by focusing on cancellation, and adds a scope constraint ('your own subscriptions').
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 implies usage context: it is for canceling subscriptions, with ownership enforcement. It also signals what happens after cancellation (historical events remain via recent_alerts), providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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.
Most tools are distinctly named and the descriptions are unusually specific, but the set contains overlapping families: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying data, and the beta variant is currently an exact duplicate. The entity/company lookup, AI-visibility, and Polymarket clusters also require reading the long descriptions to choose correctly.
All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, with useful prefixes like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, and pipeworx_. However the macro pattern is mixed: many are verb-first (compare_entities, resolve_entity), many are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edge_tracker, recent_alerts), and one puts the verb last (linkedin_humblebrag_generate).
32 tools is far too many for a server whose apparent name and stated LinkedIn-humblebrag purpose are served by exactly one tool. Even viewed as a general Pipeworx/research utility, the surface is bloated: duplicate ask variants, multiple meta-tools, and a sprawling prediction-market family push the count well past the 25-tool threshold.
For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only generation exists, with no way to list, edit, delete, publish, or manage LinkedIn-humblebrag posts. The de facto Pipeworx research domain is much better covered, but the overall set has serious dead ends because the one LinkedIn tool is isolated and the core tools are oriented toward a different, unrelated workflow.