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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that ownership is enforced and that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, preserving historical events. This adds significant behavioral context.
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, no fluff. The action is front-loaded and each sentence provides essential information about cancellation, ownership, and the soft-delete behavior.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership, side effects, and connection to recent_alerts. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
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 schema already describes the id parameter as a subscription uuid from subscribe. The description simply refers to 'by id' without adding further parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema 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 cancels a subscription by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions, and adds ownership and deactivation details.
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?
Provides clear context on ownership enforcement and the deactivation behavior, implying when it should be used (for canceling one's own subscriptions). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are overlapping families (ask_pipeworx variants, company research tools) that could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might misselect without careful reading.
Tools follow snake_case with a verb+noun pattern, but some names are less clear (e.g., 'recall', 'remember' are verbs alone). Overall consistent enough, with minor deviations.
33 tools is on the higher side, but the server covers a wide domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, monitoring). Each tool has a clear purpose, so the count feels appropriate rather than excessive.
The tool surface is remarkably complete: querying, comparisons, monitoring, alerts, memory, arbitrage, edge tracking. There are no obvious gaps for the intended data analytics and prediction market use case.