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 signal mutating, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, row deactivation instead of deletion, and the availability of historical events via recent_alerts. This enriches the tool's behavioral profile without any contradiction.
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?
The description is three sentences long, all content-bearing, with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then explains constraints and side effects efficiently.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input, ownership, side effect (deactivation), and downstream availability of historical data. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without further guidance.
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 fully describes the only parameter 'id' (subscription id returned by subscribe), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no new param-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 the action ('Cancel'), the resource ('a subscription'), and the method ('by id'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on cancellation, and the ownership enforcement adds a unique 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to cancel a subscription you own) and includes behavioral details like ownership enforcement and deactivation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would earn a 5.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (beta is currently identical), and the five Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) require careful reading to distinguish. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all handle company data, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are clearly paired. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent will frequently misselect among these clusters.
All names are lowercase with underscores, so the style is internally consistent. However, the pattern is mixed: many use verb_noun (get_positions, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity) but several are noun-first or noun-only (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, bet_research). There's no strong verb/noun convention across the set, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.
With 34 tools, the set exceeds the 16–25 'heavy' range and sits in the 'too many' band. The server name suggests a focused satellite-tracking service, yet only 3 tools (get_positions, get_visual_passes, whats_above) serve that purpose; the other 31 cover unrelated domains like data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. Even as a general-purpose research platform, the count feels bloated and unfocused.
The tool surface is broad, covering satellite tracking, data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, and memory, and within each cluster the main operations exist (e.g., subscription lifecycle, edge analysis + fill risk). However, the scattered scope creates gaps: there's no direct raw-data fetch tool (everything goes through ask_pipeworx), no general web search, and the presence of unrelated utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) suggests the domain boundaries are unclear. For its stated satellite purpose, the satellite tools are thin (no TLE, no catalog, no detailed orbit info).