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?
Description adds context beyond annotations: row is deactivated (not deleted) so historical events stay available via recent_alerts. Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent, so description complements without contradicting.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with action, then relevant constraints and behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
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, description covers purpose, constraints (ownership enforcement), and behavioral outcome (deactivation). Sufficient for agent to use 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?
Schema covers 100% of parameter with description already stating the id comes from subscribe. Description repeats this but adds no new semantic meaning, so 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?
Description clearly states verb (cancel) and resource (subscription), and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by mentioning ownership enforcement and 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?
Explicitly states ownership enforcement (only cancel own subscriptions), providing clear condition for use. Does not mention when not to use, but given simplicity, context is sufficient.
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 tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to data sources; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research all target prediction-market analysis; and all_cases plus convert_case both handle text-case conversion. An agent will struggle to pick the right tool without deep reading.
Nearly all names are lowercase with underscores, but the morphological pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (convert_case, compare_entities, resolve_entity, scan_dependency), many are bare nouns (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, all_cases), and a few are single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember). Still readable, but not a predictable verb_noun convention throughout.
33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Textcase' — only all_cases and convert_case relate to the apparent purpose. The remaining 31 constitute a sprawling assortment of data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback tools that have nothing to do with text casing, making the count feel bloated and misaligned.
For the stated text-case domain, the two converters cover the basic transformations but lack supporting operations like case detection, batch processing, or custom case definitions. More fundamentally, the tool surface is incoherent: the majority of tools serve foreign domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, subscriptions), so there is no clear domain to evaluate for completeness, and obvious gaps exist within whatever the server is meant to be.