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-destructive (destructiveHint false). Description adds valuable detail: deactivation (not deletion) preserves historical events via recent_alerts, enriching behavioral understanding 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?
Two sentences efficiently convey main action, constraints, and behavioral nuance. No redundant information; 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?
Covers key aspects: ownership, soft-deletion, and linkage to recent_alerts. No output schema needed for this simple idempotent tool. Could mention error handling or return value, but overall complete for the use case.
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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'). Description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline score of 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) and resource (subscription 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 ownership enforcement (only cancel own subscriptions), providing clear usage boundaries. Lacks explicit mention of alternatives, but the context is sufficient for agent decision-making.
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.
Each tool has a clearly defined purpose with detailed descriptions, and despite some composite tools, there is no ambiguity in when to use which one.
Tool names mix verb_noun and noun_noun patterns, with some purely verb names, lacking a consistent convention. While readable, the pattern is not predictable.
With 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side for a mixed-purpose toolset. Each tool earns its place, but the count feels slightly bloated for the breadth of domains covered.
The server covers several domains (AI visibility, betting, entity lookup, etc.) with reasonable depth, but the lack of a unified domain means some areas feel under-served (e.g., no update/delete except memory).