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 ownership restrictions and the deactivation (not deletion) behavior, adding meaningful context beyond the annotations. It explains that historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts, which is valuable behavioral information.
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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by two key constraints. No redundant wording; 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?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with robust annotations and schema, the description covers purpose, effect, ownership, and data retention. The absence of an output schema is acceptable as the tool's behavior is fully described.
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 id parameter is already well-documented as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description merely says 'by id' without adding new semantic details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with 'Cancel a subscription by id,' using a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. The action is unambiguous.
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?
It provides clear context: ownership is enforced and the row is deactivated, not deleted. It also points to recent_alerts for historical events, implying an alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other tools or when not to use it.
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.
The StackExchange tools are distinct, but the dominating data-lookup cluster is highly ambiguous: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route into the same underlying tool catalog. The polymorpharket tools also overlap heavily, making selection between bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and fill-risk checks genuinely hard.
The names are all snake_case but otherwise follow no consistent pattern: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, stack_get_user), composite domain names (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and generic verbs (resolve_entity, validate_claim, search_within). The StackExchange subset itself is split between stack_get_user/stack_tags and search_questions/get_answers.
36 tools is already in the 'too many' range for one server, and the mismatch with the server name is severe: only 5 of 36 tools relate to StackExchange. The rest form a broad Pipeworx/prediction-market data platform that would itself be oversized for a focused purpose.
For a StackExchange-focused server, the surface has core read operations but lacks question-detail-by-ID, comments, related questions, or any write/community actions, and the 31 unrelated tools do not fill that gap. For the broader apparent Pipeworx platform coverage is broad, but the set has no single coherent domain against which completeness can be meaningfully judged.