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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond these flags: ownership enforcement, deactivation instead of deletion, and that historical events remain via recent_alerts. It does not discuss error cases or return values, but for a simple subscription cancellation this is sufficient 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 three sentences, each adding distinct information: the action, the ownership constraint, and the non-destructive effect. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.
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 cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, who can do it, and the side effects on data. It could mention what happens if the id is invalid or not owned, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, it is close to 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 documents the only parameter 'id' at 100% coverage, including that it is a subscription id returned by subscribe. The description adds little beyond saying 'by id', so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the burden.
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 begins with a specific verb+resource pair ('Cancel a subscription by id'), clearly identifying the tool's action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by specifying the cancellation/deactivation behavior, and mentions ownership enforcement.
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 this tool: when you want to cancel a subscription and need to understand that ownership is enforced and rows are deactivated not deleted. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context with subscribe and recent_alerts is clear enough; however, it lacks explicit exclusions or 'use instead' guidance.
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.
Several clusters of tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all answer questions, and the five polymarket_* tools require careful reading to distinguish. The three UK police tools are clear, but they sit among many near-duplicate data-query and memory utilities.
Mixed conventions: snake_case verb_noun (get_crimes) coexists with brand-style names (ask_pipeworx), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage), and bare verbs (forget, recall). The polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall set lacks a single pattern.
34 tools is heavy, and only three relate to the server's stated ukpolice domain, while the rest form a general-purpose data platform. Many meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, memory) add bulk relative to the core purpose.
For the actual Pipeworx scope, coverage is strong: query, research, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. But for the ukpolice name, it is missing many UK police endpoints (neighborhoods, stop-and-search, etc.) and has no write/update operations, so the surface feels mismatched.