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 (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), it explains the row is deactivated, not deleted, and that historical events remain available. Adds valuable behavioral context without 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?
Two sentences, 35 words, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence serves a purpose; no redundancy or waste.
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 ownership, deactivation behavior, and links to related tool. Complete and sufficient.
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% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.
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,' identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' without ambiguity.
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?
Explicitly states ownership enforcement: 'you can only cancel your own subscriptions,' providing a clear condition for when to use. Mentions deactivation and historical events via 'recent_alerts,' hinting at alternatives.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the set includes three very similar `ask_pipeworx` variants that could cause confusion despite detailed descriptions. The Polymarket and memory tools are well-differentiated.
Names follow a mix of patterns: some `verb_noun` (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some `noun_noun` (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and some standalone nouns (forget, recall). While readable, the inconsistency is notable.
At 33 tools, the server is on the heavy side for typical MCP servers (3-15 ideal). However, the broad scope covering many data domains partially justifies the count.
The tool set covers a wide range of data access and analysis needs, including entity resolution, company profiles, betting analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for editing entities), but overall it's well-rounded.