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 indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: soft-delete behavior (deactivated not deleted) and that historical events remain available via recent_alerts, going beyond annotations.
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, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, each sentence adds essential information.
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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the operation, ownership constraint, and side effects. It is complete for the agent to use correctly.
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% and the single parameter 'id' is well-described in the schema as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description only says 'by id', adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Cancel' with a clear resource 'a subscription' and method 'by id'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like subscribe, list_subscriptions, and recent_alerts.
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: ownership is enforced (you can only cancel your own subscriptions). It implies the right time to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Several tools are near-identical in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route the same style of question, and the company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) and Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) have overlapping triggers. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong one.
All names are snake_case and mostly readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-led (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, scan_dependency), some are noun-led (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and some are adjective-noun phrases (recent_changes, recent_alerts). The polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall set has no unifying pattern.
33 tools is high and the server bundles several unrelated domains: Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, PRIDE proteomics, memory, subscriptions, and AI-visibility checks. Each cluster is individually useful, but the aggregate surface feels over-stuffed rather than well-scoped for a single MCP server.
The main clusters are well covered: query/grounded/deep research, entity resolution/profile/compare/validate, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and a rich Polymarket analytics toolkit. Minor gaps exist—PRIDE is limited to metadata search/get and there is no trade execution for prediction markets—but most workflows can be completed without dead ends.