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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the row is deactivated rather than deleted, and this preserves historical events. This goes beyond the annotations' safety profile and clarifies the exact side effect, which is valuable for an agent.
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 with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and each sentence provides distinct, useful information: what it does, ownership constraint, and non-destructive behavior. It is well-structured for quick parsing.
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 core operation, ownership restrictions, and the important consequence (deactivation, not deletion, with history preserved). It doesn't detail error states or response format, but given the simplicity and annotation support, it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds only minor extra context by mentioning 'by id' and ownership enforcement, which doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 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,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It also differentiates from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on cancellation, and the ownership constraint adds further clarity.
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 conveys usage context by stating ownership is enforced (only cancel your own subscriptions) and that historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts after cancellation. While it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.
The set contains several heavily overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants (with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now) and six polymarket-related tools that all orbit edge detection, arbitrage, and fill risk. An agent choosing among bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_kalshi_spread would have a hard time picking the right one.
Most tools use readable snake_case, so the naming is not chaotic. However, the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), some are brand-style (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta), and some are noun-only phrases (events, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending). It is consistent in casing but not in structural convention.
32 tools is well beyond the usual well-scoped range, and the count is inflated by multiple near-duplicate clusters for querying, prediction markets, and memory/subscription utilities. For a server named Madrid Events, this is especially disproportionate since only one tool actually relates to Madrid events.
Relative to the Madrid Events name, the domain coverage is almost entirely missing: only events addresses the stated purpose, and it is read-only with no detail view, booking, or management operations. If interpreted as the broader Pipeworx platform, coverage is richer, but the server's stated identity makes the gap severe.