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 non-destructive and idempotent. Description adds value by explaining soft-delete behavior (row deactivated, historical events preserved) and ownership enforcement.
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, front-loaded with action, followed by constraints. No wasted words.
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 param and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose, ownership, and data model implications. Minor gap: what happens if already unsubscribed.
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 has 100% coverage with description for 'id' parameter. Description does not add additional semantic detail beyond restating subscription id from 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?
Clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (opposite) and 'list_subscriptions' (listing).
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?
Describes ownership enforcement ('only your own subscriptions') and behavioral nuance (deactivated, not deleted). Implicitly clarifies when to use, though does not explicitly state when not to use or mention 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.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket research tools, visibility checks), despite detailed descriptions. An agent may struggle to choose between closely related options.
Tool names mix snake_case verb_noun patterns (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities) with noun-heavy compound names (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, deep_research) and single-word names (e.g., query, recall). No consistent convention.
With 34 tools, the surface is heavy for a research/data server. Many tools are variants of core capabilities (ask_pipeworx, polymarket edges), suggesting consolidation would improve usability.
The server covers a broad range: data research, prediction markets, entity profiles, monitoring. However, the abundance of specialized variants and gaps in unified workflows (e.g., needing separate tools for simple vs grounded queries) reduce completeness.