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 (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that the row is deactivated, not deleted, and historical events remain available via recent_alerts. No contradictions with 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no extraneous 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraint, and behavioral impact completely.
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%. The description adds ownership context but does not elaborate on the parameter format or constraints beyond the schema. 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 the action ('Cancel a subscription') and specifies the resource ('by id'). It distinguishes itself 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?
The description explicitly mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing essential usage context. It could mention when not to use it, but the constraint is clear.
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.
Multiple tools occupy the same natural-language lookup niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions, and the beta tool is currently described as identical to the stable router. Prediction-market edge detection also fans out across bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk, so an agent can easily select the wrong one.
Most names follow a predictable snake_case action-first pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, subscribe, unsubscribe) with helpful domain prefixes for polymarket_*, realestate_*, and pipeworx_*. Minor deviations exist—entity_profile is noun-first, ask_pipeworx lacks an underscore, and remember/forget/recall are bare verbs—but they do not create real confusion.
33 tools is well above the coherence sweet spot and the rubric's 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by auxiliary platform utilities (feedback, trending, memory, subscriptions, llms.txt generation, npm scanning) that are unrelated to the Realestate name and make the tool surface feel like a full platform rather than a focused MCP server.
For a server named Realestate, the surface is only minimally complete: realestate_municipalities and realestate_transactions cover Japanese transaction lookups, but there are no tools for property listings, property details, pricing estimates, or typical real-estate workflows. Even viewed as a broad data platform, the set is read-heavy with no create/update/delete operations beyond memories and subscriptions, leaving significant workflow gaps.