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?
Annotations already provide non-readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and that historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts. This explains the non-destructive nature and consequence. 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 sentences that are concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary action and constraint, the second explains the effect. No unnecessary 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, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, constraint (ownership), and effect (deactivation). Could be improved by explicitly mentioning idempotency or error conditions, but overall sufficient.
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% and the schema already describes the id parameter in sufficient detail ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'). The description does not add any additional parameter information, so the baseline score 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 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It uses a specific verb (cancel) and resource (subscription). It also adds ownership enforcement and the effect of deactivation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_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?
Explicitly says 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions,' which tells the agent when to use it (for own subscriptions) and implies not for others'. It also mentions that historical events stay available via recent_alerts, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention 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.
The vast majority of tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) are unrelated to Metabolights and overlap heavily with each other in purpose. Only two tools (get_study and search_studies) are clearly distinct and relevant to the server's stated domain.
Tool names are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (get_study, search_studies), camelCase (ask_pipeworx), and varied verb styles (e.g., validate_claim vs bet_research). No consistent pattern across the set.
With 28 tools, the server is extremely overpopulated for its stated purpose (Metabolights). Only 2 tools actually pertain to metabolomics study access, while the remaining 26 are general-purpose or unrelated (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edges), making the count highly inappropriate.
The Metabolights domain severely lacks completeness: only search_studies and get_study are provided, with no create, update, delete, or upload functionality. The server fails to cover essential operations for its supposed domain.