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 already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement and that the row is deactivated (not deleted) preserving historical events. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and provides extra behavioral nuance. No contradiction.
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 delivering distinct value: action, constraint, and side-effect. It is front-loaded with the action and has zero fluff 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 good annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, who can use it, and the subtle non-deletion side effect. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without needing return-value details.
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%, with 'id' already described as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description only restates 'by id' without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning fully.
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 a subscription by id') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by emphasizing the cancellation action and the ownership constraint. No ambiguity.
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 usage context: you can only cancel your own subscriptions, which gives a clear prerequisite. It also explains the effect (deactivated, not deleted) relevant for choosing this over deletion tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.
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.
The tool set is dominated by tools unrelated to USGS earthquakes (e.g., Polymarket betting, company profiles, memory operations). An agent would find it nearly impossible to distinguish the few earthquake-specific tools from the multitude of unrelated ones, leading to severe misselection.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., search_earthquakes, count_earthquakes), which is consistent. However, the variety of verbs and domains creates a sense of incoherence, and some tool names are overly generic (e.g., process, run) in the broader context, though those are not present here. The naming pattern is acceptable but the inconsistency in domain scope reduces clarity.
With 29 tools but only 3 directly related to earthquakes, the tool count is grossly inappropriate. The server's name suggests a focused purpose, but the vast majority of tools belong to other domains (e.g., Pipeworx queries, Polymarket betting, company data). This extreme mismatch makes the tool set bloated and misleading.
For earthquake data, the server provides only search, count, and get by ID. Missing are common operations like listing recent quakes, subscribing to alerts, or updating/correcting data. The coverage is minimal and insufficient for a comprehensive earthquake tool server, leaving significant gaps that agents could not work around.