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?
Adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, soft-deactivation (row not deleted), and that historical events remain accessible via recent_alerts. This clarifies the non-destructive nature and post-cancellation behavior, which annotations don't cover.
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?
Three concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the following sentences add necessary context without 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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the action, ownership requirement, and the soft-delete behavior with downstream impact. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand use and consequences.
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 fully describes the parameter as a uuid returned by subscribe (100% coverage). The description adds the ownership context but no additional technical detail for the parameter itself, so baseline 3 applies.
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' and specifies the operation is by id. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by stating the action is cancellation.
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 that ownership is enforced and only your own subscriptions can be canceled. It also notes the consequence for historical events, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.
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.
Tools are generally distinct in purpose, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. Descriptions clearly differentiate them, but an agent might still need to carefully choose.
Most tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear prefixes (e.g., pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). A few names like compare_entities and validate_claim break the pattern, but overall it is predictable.
With 40 tools, the server is overly large for a single coherent set. Many tools are meta or auxiliary, but the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold, making it hard for agents to navigate.
The tool set covers data retrieval, Chilean open data, Polymarket, memory, and monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct trading for Polymarket), but the surface is complete for the stated purpose.