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 discloses that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, preserving historical events for recent_alerts. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-destructiveness. It also mentions ownership enforcement, providing behavioral detail not in the 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, no filler. The action is stated first, followed by key behavioral notes.
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 cancellation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers ownership, soft-delete behavior, and downstream availability in recent_alerts. No output schema exists, so return details aren't expected.
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 description already fully documents the id parameter (uuid returned by subscribe), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
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 the specific verb 'Cancel' with a resource 'subscription by id,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It also states the ownership enforcement, further clarifying its scope.
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 implies the tool is for cancelling an existing subscription, with ownership as a constraint. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it provides clear context that you can only cancel your own subscriptions. No sibling distinction or when-not-to-use is given, so not a 5.
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 clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (the beta currently matches stable exactly), and the Polymarket tools all circle around edge/arbitrage detection with fuzzy boundaries. The Spain tender tools and utility tools are distinct, but the overlapping clusters are enough to cause misselection.
Names are uniformly snake_case and some families share clear prefixes (es_tender_*, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). However, conventions are mixed: verb-led names like compare_entities and subscribe sit alongside noun phrases like entity_profile and bet_research, so there is no consistent verb_noun pattern.
34 tools is already in the heavy range, but the bigger problem is scope: a server named 'Spain Tenders' ships 34 tools, only 3 of which are actually Spanish-procurement tools. The rest are a broad Pipeworx/Polymarket/utility toolkit, making the count inappropriate for the declared purpose.
The three es_tender_* tools cover the core discovery workflows: keyword search, recent notices, and status filtering with budgets, deadlines, and URLs. Notable gaps remain, though: no tender detail-by-id tool, no tender-specific subscription/alerting, and no explicit region, CPV, or date-range filters.