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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: ownership enforcement and the fact that the row is deactivated, not deleted, preserving historical events. This helps set expectations about side effects.
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, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the operation, the second provides ownership and non-destructive behavior details. 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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the operation, the ownership limitation, and the soft-delete effect. It could mention return behavior, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficiently 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which already specifies it's a subscription uuid. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on the cancellation action and the use of an id.
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 for cancelling subscriptions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does provide a relevant constraint ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), but no direct comparison to other tools.
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 overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, and validate_claim all serve data-lookup purposes with unclear boundaries. The three xkcd comic tools are distinct but are buried under 31 unrelated tools, making selection confusing.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_first (get_comic, list_subscriptions), some are nouns (entity_profile, deep_research), some have prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and others are vague (scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt). The mixing of styles across the set makes it hard to predict naming.
With 34 tools and a server name of 'xkcd', the count is wildly disproportionate; only 3 tools relate to comics. Even as a general data-access server, 34 tools is heavy and many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) that add bulk.
For the actual Pipeworx data domain, the surface is fairly comprehensive: querying, grounded answers, research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis are covered. However, there are notable gaps like no fetch-by-URI tool and no xkcd search/list capability, making the set incomplete for its name and slightly incomplete for its inferred domain.