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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses two significant behaviors: ownership is enforced, and the operation performs a soft deactivation rather than a physical delete, which preserves historical data. This adds meaningful context about side effects and consequences that the annotations do not capture.
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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the action, the ownership restriction, and the side-effect behavior. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation details. Properly front-loaded with the action verb.
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 single-parameter cancellation tool, the description covers purpose, ownership, and the soft-delete behavior. It references recent_alerts for understanding the preservation of history. A return value is not described, but that is a minor gap for a straightforward cancellation operation; the tool is adequately contextualized.
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 already provides a full description of the 'id' parameter ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds an extra semantic constraint: the id must belong to the caller's own subscription, which is not stated in the schema. This elevates the parameter meaning beyond schema alone.
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+identifier statement. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by focusing on cancellation, and the additional detail about deactivation (not deletion) further distinguishes it from a hypothetical delete operation.
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?
Ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') provides a clear constraint on when the tool applies. The note that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, with historical events preserved via recent_alerts, implies the tool is appropriate when preserving history matters. However, no explicit alternative tool is named or 'when not to use' scenario is provided, so it doesn't fully meet the 'explicit alternatives' bar.
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 tool set includes multiple pairs of nearly identical tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage) that overlap heavily in purpose. Many tools also combine unrelated functions, making it difficult for an agent to select the right one without confusion.
Tool names follow no discernible pattern: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, get_bill), and even lengthy descriptive names (scan_competitor_ai_presence) are mixed. The naming style is chaotic and inconsistent across the set.
With 30 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on OpenStates (state legislatures). Only a few tools (search_bills, get_bill, etc.) relate to the server's name, while the rest are tangentially related to data lookups, betting, or AI visibility, making the set bloated.
The server's core domain (state legislative data) is severely underserved: only about 5 tools cover bills and legislators, lacking basic CRUD operations like create, update, or delete. Many obvious operations (e.g., searching bills by subject, tracking votes) are missing, while unrelated tools dominate.