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?
Beyond annotations (which already indicate non-destructive and idempotent), the description adds critical behavior: ownership enforcement and soft-delete ('deactivated not deleted') with historical events preserved in recent_alerts. This provides meaningful side-effect disclosure without contradicting annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value: what, ownership, and side effects. No filler or 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, constraints, and behavioral consequences. It references related state (recent_alerts) and clarifies the lifecycle of the subscription.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, which is well-described as a uuid from subscribe. The description's mention of 'by id' adds no new semantics; the schema already covers it. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with a specific verb and resource, directly distinguishing it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'. It clearly identifies the action and target.
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 the use case (cancel a subscription) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. Ownership enforcement is mentioned but not tied to alternative tools. Basic context is clear, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
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.
Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all pull overlapping company data. The server is named 'Movies' but only 4 of 35 tools relate to movies, making it impossible to infer what the tool set is actually for.
Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_movies, get_tv_schedule), bare nouns (remember, recall), brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and ad-hoc verbs (ask_pipeworx vs validate_claim). There is no consistent convention; even the pipeworx family uses ask_ vs grounded vs beta suffixes that don't follow a predictable pattern.
35 tools is heavy for a single server, and for a 'Movies' server it is extreme overkill since the vast majority have nothing to do with movies. Even if the intent was a general data/betting server, 35 tools exceed the upper bound of the well-scoped range and would be better split into focused servers.
As a movies/TV server it is severely incomplete: there is no get_movie, no reviews, no watchlist, no person/actor search—only search_movies, search_tv_shows, get_tv_show, and get_tv_schedule. If instead the domain is Pipeworx data, coverage is better but still lacks mutation tools (e.g., no create/update for subscriptions beyond subscribe/unsubscribe) and the movie tools become dead weight.