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 meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: ownership enforcement, row deactivation rather than deletion, and that historical events remain available via recent_alerts. This provides important side-effect information that the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) do not fully convey.
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 that front-load the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and then add relevant constraints and consequences. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, ownership constraint, behavioral effect, and relationship to recent_alerts. It could mention what happens on invalid id or already-canceled subscription, but the idempotentHint annotation partially covers that. Overall, quite 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?
The single parameter id is fully described in the schema (uuid returned by subscribe). The description merely says 'by id,' adding no format or source detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 'Cancel a subscription by id,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. The additional detail about deactivating rather than deleting further clarifies the 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?
The description gives useful context: ownership is enforced and the effect is deactivation, not deletion. It implies this is the tool to stop receiving alerts for a subscription, but does not explicitly state alternative tools or when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent.
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.
The tool set is a mix of country lookups and many unrelated Pipeworx tools (e.g., prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). While the country-specific tools are distinct, the overall set is a hodgepodge, making it difficult for an agent to determine which tools are relevant to a given task.
Naming conventions are mixed: some use verb_noun (search_countries), some noun_verb (countries_by_currency), some single verbs (forget, recall), and some phrases (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx). No consistent pattern is followed.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'countries'. Only about 6-7 tools are actually related to countries; the rest are unrelated (Pipeworx services, prediction markets, etc.), creating an extreme mismatch between the server name and its content.
For the country domain, the tool set includes search and lookups by code/currency/language/region but lacks basic CRUD, comparisons, maps, or sorting. Additionally, the presence of many unrelated tools dilutes completeness for the stated purpose.