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?
The annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: ownership enforcement, deactivation rather than deletion, and the side effect on recent_alerts. This goes beyond what annotations provide and gives the agent important operational context. No contradiction with 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential constraints and side effects. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.
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 tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral outcomes completely. It leaves no critical questions about when or how to invoke the tool.
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%, with the parameter 'id' already described as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description only adds 'by id' and an ownership constraint, which does not substantially augment the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 a specific verb 'Cancel' with a clear resource 'subscription' and method 'by id'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe (creation) and list_subscriptions (viewing), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for use: ownership is enforced, so only your own subscriptions can be canceled, and the row is deactivated to preserve history via recent_alerts. It implies when to use (stop future alerts but keep historical events) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Multiple query-router tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all serve as entry points into the same underlying data, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also have fuzzy boundaries that an agent could easily mis-select.
Most tools follow a readable lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, get_climate_projection, resolve_entity), but conventions are mixed: pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, recent_alerts, and recent_changes are noun-first/non-imperative, and the ask_pipeworx family uses a verb-plus-variant-suffix style. The pattern is predictable enough to navigate but not consistent.
33 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, and the server name 'climate' does not match the broad data-research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and web-utility scope actually covered. Several tools could be consolidated (ask_pipeworx variants, discover_tools/suggest_questions, multiple polymarket scanners), which would reduce cognitive load without losing capability.
As a general data-access and research surface, the tool set is quite complete: it covers lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, recent changes, memory, subscriptions, alerts, feedback, and tool discovery. Minor gaps exist — the climate-specific coverage is limited to projections and model comparison despite the server name, and there is no direct tool to page through the full catalog — but for its inferred broad purpose there are no major dead ends.