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 description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and that historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts. Annotations only provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so this context is valuable.
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 with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action and ownership constraint, the second explains the behavioral nuance.
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 mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, ownership, the deactivation behavior, and the impact on historical data. It also connects to the related tool recent_alerts.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the subscription id is 'returned by subscribe,' which clarifies the parameter's origin. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 'Cancel a subscription by id,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on cancellation.
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 explicitly mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), which provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies not to use for others' subscriptions.
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.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and discover_tools all occupy adjacent lookup/discovery territory. The four Codewars tools are clear, but the broader set is genuinely hard to navigate.
Most names follow a readable snake_case verb_noun style with useful prefixes like polymarket_ and user_, but there are one-word outliers (kata, user, forget, recall, remember) and inconsistent phrasing such as ai_visibility_check versus scan_competitor_ai_presence. The naming is mostly predictable but not uniform.
35 tools is already heavy, and the server is named Codewars while only 4 of the 35 tools relate to Codewars. The remaining 31 tools belong to a completely different Pipeworx research/prediction-market/brand-visibility product, making the count both excessive and fundamentally mismatched to the server's stated identity.
For a Codewars server, the surface is severely incomplete: you can fetch a single kata and a user's profile, authored list, and completed list, but there is no search, no kata listing by rank/tag, no solution submission or training workflow, and no way to manage authored kata. The unrelated Pipeworx tools do not fill these gaps; they point at a different domain entirely.