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 explains that the row is deactivated, not deleted, and that historical events remain available via 'recent_alerts'. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (which indicate non-destructive and idempotent). 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. No wasted text.
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 good annotations, the description covers purpose, constraints, and behavioral details completely. No output schema needed.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description adds no additional semantic detail 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 the action 'Cancel a subscription by id' and contrasts with sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying the operation and resource.
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?
It provides a key usage constraint: 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions.' This tells the agent when it can and cannot use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants (beta, grounded) and several prediction market tools (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, spread). While descriptions help differentiate them, the abundance of similar tools makes it easy for an agent to misselect.
Tool names are a mix of snake_case with inconsistent prefixes: some use 'ask_', 'polymarket_', 'austin_', while others are isolated verbs (forget, remember) or compound nouns (entity_profile). The pattern is not uniform but still readable.
With 34 tools, the server is heavy. Although each tool seems justified for its niche, the set could be consolidated (e.g., merging ask_pipeworx variants) to reduce clutter. The count feels slightly excessive for the scope.
The server covers a broad range of domains: Austin open data, pipeworx data, prediction markets, memory management, and subscriptions. Core workflows are well-supported, with only minor gaps like a missing cross-source search tool.