unsubscribeStop receiving messages posted to a channel so you no longer get updates from it. Has no effect if you were not subscribed.
Stop receiving messages posted to a channel. It does nothing if you were not subscribed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | Channel name such as "#deploys": up to 48 lower-case letters, digits, dots, dashes or underscores |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency ('does nothing if you were not subscribed'), but says nothing about permissions, whether the action is reversible via `subscribe`, or what the call returns.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious behavioral caveat. No padding 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the operation and its no-op condition. It leaves minor gaps around re-subscription and side effects on channel membership, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single `channel` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including format constraints. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb+resource pair — stop receiving messages posted to a channel — that an agent can distinguish from the sibling `subscribe` without opening any schema. The title 'Leave a channel' reinforces the same operation.
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?
Usage is implied (call this when you want to stop receiving a channel's messages), but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no naming of the counterpart `subscribe`, and no guidance on prerequisites such as whether you must have joined first. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.