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 enforcement, deactivation rather than deletion, and that historical events remain available via recent_alerts. This adds substantive context about side effects and data persistence, complementing the annotations without contradiction.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise and well-structured, covering the action, ownership rule, and deactivation behavior without waste.
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 mutation tool with one parameter, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description is complete. It explains the operation, the ownership restriction, the non-destructive nature, and the impact on historical data, leaving no critical gaps.
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 description coverage is 100% (id is fully described as a uuid returned by subscribe). The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 by id') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It includes the parameter (id) and key constraints, making the purpose 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 on when to use the tool (cancel a subscription) and includes a constraint (ownership enforced) and a pointer to recent_alerts for historical data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_subscriptions or state when not to use this tool, 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.
Multiple tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle natural-language data queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly duplicating ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) also heavily overlaps, and ai_visibility_check is a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would frequently be unable to tell which tool to select.
All names are snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe), and several are noun-first domain names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile). There is no uniform verb convention, and the mix makes it hard to predict what a tool does from its name.
At 33 tools, this is well above the 'heavy' threshold and includes several near-duplicates: three ask_pipeworx variants and six polymarket_* tools. While the underlying platform is broad, this meta-layer could be consolidated to 15-20 tools without losing capability.
The core data-query workflow is well covered: ask, deep research, entity profile, compare, validate, resolve ID, and search inside documents. The memory lifecycle (remember/recall/forget) and subscription lifecycle (subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe) are also complete. However, the set includes unrelated utilities (generate_paragraphs, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) that don't belong to the main data domain, and there is no direct tool to execute a raw discovered tool by name.