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?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: ownership enforcement, row deactivation (not deletion), and preservation of historical events. This aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and provides clear expectations.
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 main action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value and the description is compact.
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 single-parameter, straightforward tool, the description covers purpose, constraints, side effects, and relationship to other tools (recent_alerts). No output schema is needed, and the description is complete.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add further details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 'Cancel a subscription by id.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.
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?
It explicitly mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), which guides when to use this tool. It also links to recent_alerts for historical events, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide 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.
Tools are mostly distinct in purpose but some overlaps exist, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several polymarket analysis tools. Detailed descriptions help, but the sheer variety and similar intent of some tools could confuse agents.
Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), single words (forecast), action_noun (bet_research), prefixes (polymarket_, pipeworx_), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No uniform pattern.
33 tools is too many for a server named 'Pirate Weather' that only has two weather-specific tools. The tool count feels inflated with many meta-tools and unrelated domains, exceeding a coherent scope.
Coverage is incomplete for the implied weather focus (only two tools). Other domains like prediction markets are better covered, but overall the surface is a mix of partial offerings with clear gaps (e.g., no update/delete for subscriptions).