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 this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context: ownership enforcement and the fact that the row is deactivated, not deleted, which explains why it is not destructive. It also clarifies that historical events remain available, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains constraints and consequences. This is a model of conciseness.
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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, who can use it, and what the outcome is. It even mentions related tool 'recent_alerts' for context about historical events. The description is fully sufficient 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 input schema fully documents the only parameter 'id' with a clear description, including that it is returned by subscribe. The description's reference to 'by id' adds little beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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') and the method ('by id'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that it deactivates rather than deletes, which is a different effect from what similar tools might do. The verb 'Cancel' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, including ownership restrictions ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the behavioral outcome (deactivation with historical events preserved). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of a fully explicit usage guideline.
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.
ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, creating real ambiguity between two tools. The polymarket cluster (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research) has overlapping edge-finding purposes that rely on reading long descriptions to separate, and the DNS tools are so few that an agent cannot tell this is a 'dns' server at all.
The set mixes at least four naming conventions: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), verb_noun (dns_lookup, validate_claim, discover_tools), noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts), and brand-prefixed families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). Each cluster is internally consistent, but the overall pattern is incoherent, including stray names like reverse_dns that invert the verb_first convention.
At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's name: only 3 of 34 tools (dns_lookup, dns_lookup_all, reverse_dns) relate to DNS. The remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated domains (data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning), making the toolkit feel like a mislabeled grab-bag rather than a scoped server.
Judged against the server's stated 'dns' purpose, coverage is thin: read-only lookups only, with no WHOIS, DNSSEC, zone management, or write operations. Judged against the dominant inferred domain (a data-research/prediction-market platform), the surface is quite complete — query, grounded verification, deep research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, discovery, subscriptions, alerts, and feedback all exist — though there is no tool to directly read a pipeworx:// citation URI.