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 reveals critical behavioral details beyond annotations: 'The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.' It also discloses ownership enforcement, which is not implied by the annotations. This adds significant context about side effects and permissions, going beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.
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, with the action front-loaded ('Cancel a subscription by id') followed by a single behavioral note. Every word adds value: ownership enforcement and deactivation semantics are both essential. No unnecessary fluff.
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 is fully complete. It covers the core action, a key constraint (ownership), and the important side effect (deactivation not deletion). This is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional details.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the id parameter as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description simply repeats 'by id' without adding new semantic meaning, so it matches the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.
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. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by focusing on cancellation. The title 'Unsubscribe from Alerts' adds context, making it 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 gives explicit instructions to cancel by id and notes ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like subscribe or list_subscriptions, the context is clear that this is for canceling existing subscriptions, making it a clear usage directive with an implicit constraint.
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, especially the multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants and several Polymarket utilities. The server mixes a few timezone tools with a large collection of unrelated data lookup and analysis tools, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.
While all tool names use snake_case, the verbs are highly inconsistent (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'convert_time', 'discover_tools', 'validate_claim'). There is no clear pattern or predictable naming convention across the set.
The server name 'timezone' suggests a narrow domain, but it contains 35 tools, the vast majority of which are unrelated to timezones. This is far too many for the implied scope, and the server seems to be a dumping ground for various services.
For a timezone server, only 4 tools (convert_time, get_time_by_ip, get_time_by_timezone, list_timezones) are relevant. Critical timezone functionality like time zone conversions with arbitrary offsets, DST handling, or time zone by coordinates is missing. The remaining tools are completely unrelated to the server's stated purpose.