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 provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: ownership enforcement, that the row is deactivated not deleted, and that historical events stay available. This extends beyond 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 only two sentences, with the first immediately stating the action and target, and the second adding constraints and side effects. No superfluous words, highly efficient.
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 and good annotations, the description covers the core action, ownership constraint, side effect of deactivation, and relevant sibling tool for historical data. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to understand usage.
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 with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The description adds meaning by stating the id is a 'uuid returned by subscribe', clarifying its origin and usage 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 clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id.' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by mentioning ownership enforcement and the deactivation behavior.
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 specifies that ownership is enforced, meaning only own subscriptions can be canceled. It also mentions that historical events remain available via 'recent_alerts', providing context for when to use this tool versus alternative tools for historical data. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to other cancellation methods.
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 overlapping semantic space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are the same router in different modes, while suggest_questions and discover_tools both serve capability discovery. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong entry point, especially among the prediction-market and router variants.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (fetch_schema, resolve_entity, validate_claim), with some domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and a few adjective_noun outliers (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The convention is consistent and predictable, with only minor deviations.
At 35 tools, the set is far too large for a server named Schemastore — only four tools relate to the schema catalog while the rest form a sprawling data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform. The count is heavy and the scope feels unfocused.
The broad data-research and prediction-market domain is well covered — lookup, compare, validate, research, arbitrage, subscriptions, and memory all have lifecycle support — but the server's namesake purpose (schema catalog) is thinly served by four read-only tools with no way to contribute or manage schemas. The domain mismatch makes the surface feel both over- and under-complete.