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 explains that the row is 'deactivated (not deleted)' and historical events remain available via recent_alerts, adding context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). 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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides key behavioral details. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: action, ownership, effect on data, and tie to related tool recent_alerts.
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. The description adds 'by id' but the schema already defines the param as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' 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 clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id' (specific verb+resource) and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by noting ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior.
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?
It explicitly states 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool and when not. No alternative tool is named, but the context is sufficient.
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 multiple near-duplicate meta-query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools) and five overlapping Polymarket analysis tools, creating genuine selection ambiguity despite detailed descriptions. The single events tool is distinct, but it is drowned out by a crowd of similar data-research utilities.
Almost all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim, remember, forget). Only 'events' deviates by being a bare noun, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
32 tools is extreme for a server named 'Montreal Events', and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The remaining 31 form a sprawling, unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and memory toolkit that would overwhelm any agent trying to work with Montréal event data.
For the server's stated purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: a single read-only event search with no event details, venue info, categories, or management operations. The Pipeworx tools may cover their own domain thoroughly, but they contribute nothing to the Montreal Events scope.