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?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds critical behavioral details: ownership restrictions ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the exact effect on the row ('deactivated (not deleted)'), plus a pointer to 'recent_alerts' for historical events. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 that lead with the core action ('Cancel a subscription by id'), then add essential constraints and consequences in subsequent clauses. Every phrase adds new information, with no wasted words 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the action, ownership restrictions, and the non-destructive deactivation behavior. It lacks an explicit note about the return value or error cases, but given the simplicity and the annotation coverage, this is a minor gap. Referencing recent_alerts helps with follow-up context.
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 input schema already provides a full description for the sole parameter 'id' as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description merely repeats 'by id' without adding extra semantic detail, so it does not compensate beyond the schema's 100% coverage.
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 the tool's function: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It specifies the resource (subscription) and the action (cancel/unsubscribe), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' or 'list_subscriptions' by indicating it's for cancellation and mentions ownership.
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 context on when to use the tool: 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions' gives a prerequisite and scope. It also notes that historical events remain available via 'recent_alerts', which suggests an alternative for viewing past data. However, it does not explicitly name 'subscribe' or 'list_subscriptions' as alternatives, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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 tool clusters have blurred boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, making them indistinguishable, and the five Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market opportunities with overlapping concerns. The meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) and entity tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) are better separated by their descriptions, but the identical beta/stable pair alone forces a low score.
All tool names use snake_case, but the naming conventions are mixed: some follow verb_noun (describe_cron, next_runs, validate_claim), some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and many are brand-prefixed noun phrases (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, bet_research). The pattern is readable and mostly predictable by prefix/domain, but there is no single consistent convention across the set.
33 tools is above the reasonable threshold for a focused server, and the count is especially disproportionate for a server named 'Crontab': only 2 tools (describe_cron, next_runs) actually deal with cron, while roughly 24 tools are Pipeworx data-query, prediction-market, and memory utilities unrelated to the server's apparent purpose. The bulk of the tool surface feels like it belongs on a different server, making the count mismatched with the stated scope.
For a cron-focused server, the surface is incomplete: it can describe cron expressions and compute next runs, but has no tool to create, update, or delete a scheduled cron job — subscribe/unsubscribe manage data-event subscriptions, not cron schedules. The Pipeworx data side is broad (lookup, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, research), but that completeness belongs to a different domain and does not rescue the cron purpose implied by the server name.