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 the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds crucial behavioral detail: ownership enforcement (can only cancel your own), deactivation instead of deletion, and the downstream effect on recent_alerts. This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects.
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 concise sentences each carry distinct information: the core action, the ownership rule, and the deactivation behavior. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant text.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the agent needs to know: intended use, access control, lifecycle semantics, and relationship to recent_alerts. The behavior is fully explained without requiring additional documentation.
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 parameter description already explains 'id' as the subscription uuid from subscribe. The tool description repeats 'by id' without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
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 opens with 'Cancel a subscription by id', a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions. The ownership constraint further sharpens the scope.
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 usage: use this tool to cancel your own alert subscriptions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the ownership note provides context for when the tool is appropriate.
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 are crisply separated (memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, single-entity vs compare vs profile), but several broad entry points overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very close variants, and discover_tools/suggest_questions/ask_pipeworx all serve discovery/routing. Descriptions help, but an agent can still easily select one of the duplicate or adjacent tools instead of the intended one.
All names are readable snake_case and there are coherent families (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, search_*, get_*), but there is no consistent verb_noun convention: noun-phrase names like recent_alerts and pipeworx_trending coexist with single verbs like remember and forget and domain-prefixed nouns like polymarket_edges. Mixed, but still reasonably navigable.
At 35 tools, the surface is well past the comfortable 3-15 tool scope and even beyond the 16-25 heavy range unless the server has one explicit mega-purpose. The set also sprawls across music lookup, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, npm checks, LLM visibility, memory, and subscriptions, so no single coherent job emerges.
For the dominant read-only research workflow, the set is remarkably complete: discover tools, grounded and ungrounded asking, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, recent changes, comparisons, claim verification, search_within, plus full memory and subscription lifecycles. Minor gaps include the shallow music side relative to the rest of the server and the absence of an explicit source catalog.