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?
Adds key behavioral details beyond annotations: ownership enforced, row deactivated not deleted, historical events preserved via recent_alerts. Aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: false).
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?
Three concise sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with main action, then constraints and side effects.
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?
Fully sufficient for a simple one-param tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, constraints, behavioral effect, and data retention implications.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds 'returned by subscribe' which schema already implies; no additional semantics beyond schema.
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?
Clear verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id'. Distinct from siblings like 'subscribe' (create) and 'list_subscriptions' (list), with specific 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?
States ownership enforcement and effect (deactivate not delete), guiding appropriate use. Does not explicitly list when-not or alternatives, but provides strong context.
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 distinct purpose described in detail. Even tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are differentiated by hallucination resistance, account requirements, and use cases. Polymarket tools are each specialized (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, etc.). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow snake_case consistently. They use descriptive verb-noun patterns (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities, subscribe). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.
32 tools is on the higher side but justified by the server's broad scope covering company research, prediction markets, data lookups, memory, subscriptions, and more. Each tool serves a distinct function, though the count might feel slightly heavy for a single server.
The toolset covers core workflows for company analysis, prediction market operations, data retrieval, and system management (memory, subscriptions). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for non-company entity profiles beyond drugs), but the overall surface is comprehensive for the intended multi-purpose assistant.