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 the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: ownership is enforced, and the row is deactivated not deleted so historical events remain available via recent_alerts. This enhances the agent's understanding of side effects and access control, beyond what annotations alone provide.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value: cancellation, ownership, deactivation, and historical event availability. No filler or redundancy; highly efficient structure.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: what it cancels, who can use it, the exact side effect (soft delete), and the impact on historical data via recent_alerts. It is complete for safe and correct invocation.
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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter id, describing it as a UUID returned by subscribe. The description merely repeats 'by id' without adding new semantic details, so it neither enhances nor harms the schema's clarity. 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Cancel a subscription by id') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by noting the cancellation behavior and the deactivation (not deletion) aspect. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys what the tool does.
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 ('Cancel a subscription by id', ownership enforcement, deactivation rather than deletion) that helps an agent decide when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the connection to recent_alerts and the ownership constraint imply sensible usage boundaries. This is above the baseline but not a full explicit guideline.
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 have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, and the five Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, bet_research, fill_risk, edge_tracker) overlap heavily in the 'should I bet on X' use case. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect between these clusters.
Naming is highly inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun_noun (entity_profile, table_meta, polymarket_edges), single verbs (remember, forget, recall), and brand-prefixed compounds (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_kalshi_spread) are all mixed together. The server name 'Stat Gl' also doesn't align with the Pipeworx-heavy tool set.
34 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold that signals an oversized surface, and the set spans disparate domains: data querying, prediction markets, entity research, memory, subscriptions, and even niche utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. While each tool has a described purpose, the count feels bloated for a coherent server.
Within its actual domains, coverage is strong: query, grounded verification, deep research, claim validation, entity profiles, comparisons, memory CRUD, and subscription lifecycle are all present, plus a complete Statistics Greenland browse/schema/query trio. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited subscription event types, US-centric company profiles), but agents can typically find a working path without dead ends.