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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: ownership is enforced (you can only cancel your own subscriptions), the row is deactivated not deleted, and historical events remain available via recent_alerts. These details add significant value beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, with no contradictions.
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 highly concise, front-loaded with the primary verb and object ('Cancel a subscription by id'), followed by two short sentences that add essential behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
Given the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, ownership constraint, deactivation behavior, and impact on historical data. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation or the deactivated record), but this is not critical for a simple unsubscribe operation.
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 fully describes the single id parameter, including that it is a subscription id returned by subscribe. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, only 'by id' and ownership context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.
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 function: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It identifies the specific resource (subscriptions) and action (cancel), and the additional context about deactivation distinguishes it from deletion-based alternatives. This is further differentiated from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions.
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 usage context is clear: it is the tool for canceling subscriptions. The description implies when to use it via ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. However, the implied context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, and between prediction market tools like bet_research and polymarket_edges. Descriptions help differentiate, but the boundaries are not always clear.
Tool names are all snake_case but lack a consistent pattern. Some start with verbs (ask, compare, find), others are nouns (autocomplete, entity_profile), and many are long phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, scan_competitor_ai_presence). The naming feels ad-hoc and not easy to predict.
At 35 tools, this server is over-packed for a server named 'words'. Many tools are unrelated to words (e.g., prediction markets, subscriptions, entity profiles). The scope is too broad, making it feel like a catch-all rather than a coherent set.
The word tools are limited (only 6), leaving obvious gaps for a word-focused server (e.g., no dictionary lookup, no word definitions). However, the server covers a wide range of data domains through meta-tools like ask_pipeworx, which compensates but makes the purpose unclear.