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 adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that the subscription is deactivated (not deleted) and that historical events remain available via 'recent_alerts'. The annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description provides complementary context. No contradiction with annotations.
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 with no extraneous text. Each sentence adds critical information: the action and ownership constraint, and the behavioral nuance of deactivation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given the simple input schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, ownership constraints, and the side effect of keeping historical data. It is fully self-contained and no additional information is needed for correct invocation.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', describing it as a uuid returned by 'subscribe'. The description refers to 'by id' but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter documentation adequately.
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 the specific verb 'Cancel' with a clear resource 'subscription' and states the action is 'by id'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe', 'list_subscriptions', and 'recent_alerts' by specifying the cancellation effect and ownership enforcement.
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 explicitly states ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), guiding the agent on when the tool is applicable. It also clarifies that the row is deactivated, not deleted, implying this is for cancelling without data loss. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answering questions, and bet_research overlapping with polymarket_edges/arbitrage. The diverse tool set lacks clear boundaries.
All names use snake_case, but verb patterns are inconsistent: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, remember) while others start with nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile). Names vary widely in length and descriptiveness.
33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Omdb', which implies a movie database. Most tools are unrelated to movies, indicating poor scoping for the server's purpose.
For the OMDb domain, only search and retrieval tools exist, with no create/update/delete operations. Overall, the tool set feels like a random collection with significant gaps relative to any coherent domain.