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?
Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds important behavioral detail: row is deactivated (not deleted) and historical events remain, which is valuable beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No superfluous words. Could potentially combine the second sentence with the first, but current structure is clean.
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 tool with no output schema and high schema coverage, the description fully covers purpose, usage condition (ownership), and behavioral outcome (deactivation). No gaps.
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% and already describes the 'id' parameter as a subscription uuid. Description repeats the schema info without adding new semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses specific verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'. It also 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?
States ownership enforcement as a key usage condition. Does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but context implies it's the inverse of 'subscribe'. Clear enough.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all route to the same data sources. Additionally, the server includes unrelated meta-tools (remember/recall/forget, generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback) that have no clear boundaries with the poverty data tools, and betting tools that seem out of place. The core poverty tools (get_poverty, get_poverty_regional, list_reference) are distinct, but the rest creates significant confusion.
Tool names are a mix of styles: some use snake_case (get_poverty, list_reference, suggest_questions), some use camelCase (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence), and others are single words (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming pattern is highly inconsistent, making it hard to predict related tool names.
With 34 tools, this server is heavily overloaded for a 'Worldbank Poverty' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to poverty (Polymarket betting, AI marketing, npm package checks, LLM visibility). The core poverty functionality could be served by 3-5 tools, but instead the server includes dozens of extra tools from a generic data platform, making the count inappropriate for the stated domain.
For the poverty data domain, the tool surface is actually quite complete: get_poverty for country-level data, get_poverty_regional for aggregations, and list_reference for metadata. The only minor gap is a lack of a tool for comparing poverty across countries directly, but that is easy to work around by calling get_poverty multiple times. The extra meta-tools do not affect poverty data completeness.