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 discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: ownership is enforced, and the row is deactivated rather than deleted, preserving historical events. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and adds valuable context about side effects.
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 core action and then add necessary constraints. 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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: ownership, soft-delete behavior, and impact on historical events. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 provides full coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds only 'by id', which does not significantly enhance the parameter understanding 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 uses a specific verb 'Cancel' with a clear resource 'subscription by id'. It also adds ownership enforcement, distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you have a subscription id to cancel) and mentions the ownership constraint. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 tools occupy nearly the same question-answering role: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual queries, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. The polymarket_* family also has overlapping opportunity-detection responsibilities, so an agent can easily select a near-duplicate tool for the same intent.
Tool names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and use recognizable domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, datalastic_, and pipeworx_, which makes the set easy to group. The main deviation is that some names are verb-first (ask, compare, subscribe) while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, bet_research), but this is minor and readable.
At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools or overlapping research/opportunity scanners that could be consolidated. The breadth is justified only partially; several utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.
As a general research and monitoring toolkit it covers the full life cycle: discover, ask, verify, compare, profile, cite, remember, subscribe, and alert. But the server is named Datalastic yet the maritime surface is thin (only live position and radius lookup, no historical tracking, port calls, or fleet tools), and a few one-off utilities don't fit a coherent domain.