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 explains important behavioral details beyond the annotations: ownership enforcement and that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, preserving historical events via recent_alerts. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and adds meaningful context.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with useful annotations, the description fully covers the effect (deactivation), ownership restrictions, and downstream impact on recent_alerts. No output schema is needed, and the description is complete.
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 fully describes the 'id' parameter as a subscription uuid returned by subscribe (100% coverage). The description merely reiterates 'by id' without adding new semantic details, so it meets the baseline for 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by emphasizing cancellation and ownership.
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 when to use the tool (when you want to cancel a subscription) and includes a clear usage constraint ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the intended use obvious.
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 overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differ only in mode; several Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) target related opportunities; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap. The meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) could also be confused for one another.
All names are lowercase snake_case, which is consistent, but patterns vary: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), others are noun (news, crypto_prices, stock_metadata), and several use brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.
35 tools is too many for a coherent, well-scoped server. The set bundles a financial data API (Tiingo) with a generic data router (ask_pipeworx), prediction-market tools, memory utilities, subscription management, and npm checks — many unrelated to the server's apparent purpose, making it feel bloated.
For a Tiingo server, core data coverage is limited to stock prices, stock metadata, crypto prices, and news — missing real-time quotes, fundamentals, forex, technical indicators, and other typical Tiingo endpoints. Conversely, the general Pipeworx platform has broad query/research/subscription coverage but that domain doesn't align with the server name, leaving significant functional gaps.