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?
The description reveals key behavioral details beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, soft deactivation (not deletion), and that historical events remain accessible. Annotations include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description. No contradictions.
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: first states the action, second adds critical behavioral and ownership context. No redundant information.
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 a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety (non-destructive, idempotent), the description fully informs an agent about ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior.
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 covers the single parameter 'id' with a clear description (uuid returned by subscribe). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for 100% coverage.
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', specifying the verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools 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?
Explicitly mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing clear context on when to use. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the constraint is well communicated.
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.
While most tools have detailed descriptions, the large number of similar data-querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, etc.) and overlapping domains (Polymarket, company research, medical) create ambiguity for an agent.
Tool names mix conventions: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), camelCase absent, some with 'pipeworx' prefix, others not (bet_research, compare_entities). No consistent verb_noun pattern.
33 tools for a server named 'Medical Codes' is excessive and misaligned. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated domains (finance, prediction markets, general research), making the count inappropriate for the stated purpose.
For medical coding, only three tools exist (search_icd10, search_loinc, search_medical_terms). The rest are tangential or unrelated, leaving severe gaps in medical code coverage.