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?
Description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the mutation is not destructive ('row is deactivated (not deleted)') and that historical events persist. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description, but the description provides valuable detail about the behavior.
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, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and then provides essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no enums), the description is complete. It covers the action, ownership enforcement, and the soft-deletion behavior. No additional information is needed for correct usage.
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% (1 parameter with description). The description adds that the id is 'returned by subscribe', which provides source context beyond the schema's type/description. This is helpful but not critical given the schema already describes the parameter.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and the resource ('subscription identified by id'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying ownership enforcement and soft-deactivation behavior.
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 when the tool can be used: 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions.' Also explains the effect (deactivation not deletion). However, it does not mention 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap (one is grounded), and bet_research/validate_claim/compare_entities/entity_profile all query Pipeworx data with different intents, which could cause confusion.
Names are consistently lower_snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_podcasts, get_podcast, list_subscriptions). A few compound names like pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_arbitrage deviate slightly but remain readable.
30 tools is excessive for a server named 'Podcastindex'. It aggregates unrelated domains (podcasts, Pipeworx queries, Polymarket, memory, etc.), making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused tool set.
For podcasts, the tool set covers search, metadata, episodes, and trending but lacks subscription management. For the broader Pipeworx domain, ask_pipeworx and discover_tools provide wide access, but specific gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing query). Overall, the surface is broad but uneven.