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 annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that the row is deactivated not deleted, ensuring historical events remain. This provides extra behavioral clarity.
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. Front-loaded with action and key constraint.
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 tool with one required param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and effect. Relates to recent_alerts for context.
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 describes the id parameter, but the description adds context that it's the subscription id returned by subscribe. This helps the agent know where to get the value.
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 mentioning ownership enforcement and 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?
The description explains ownership enforcement, guiding agents to only use for their own subscriptions. It also implies when not to use, but lacks explicit mention of alternatives like list_subscriptions first.
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.
There are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions through the same 5,743-tool catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket opportunity tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) also have fuzzy boundaries despite detailed descriptions.
There is no consistent naming pattern across the set: some tools are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim), some are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and some are compound/multi-word oddities (temperature_random_generate, ai_visibility_check). Small internal clusters like remember/recall/forget and subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions show mini-consistency, but the overall convention is mixed and unpredictable.
With 32 tools, the server is over-stuffed, and many of them serve the same broad Pipeworx data/research purpose while one unrelated temperature tool rides along. The count is above the 25-tool threshold where a set starts to feel unwieldy, and several tools could be merged or dropped without losing real capability.
Assuming the intended scope is the Pipeworx data/agent platform implied by 31 of the 32 tools, coverage is strong: lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, entity resolution, claim validation, tool discovery, memory, subscription lifecycle, prediction-market analysis, execution risk, and feedback are all represented. The temperature_random_generate tool is a domain misfit rather than a completeness gap, and there are few obvious missing operations for the stated workflows.