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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that cancellation is ownership-enforced and performs a deactivation rather than deletion, preserving historical events for recent_alerts. This adds valuable behavioral context the annotations alone don't provide, with no 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 no wasted words. The first sentence states what it does; the second efficiently covers constraints and behavioral effects, making every sentence meaningful.
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 single-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotency, the description provides sufficient context: ownership enforcement, soft-delete behavior, and impact on recent_alerts. It omits the return value, but the simplicity of the operation and annotation coverage make it largely complete.
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 schema already fully describes the single parameter ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'), and the description only restates that cancellation is by id without adding new parameter-specific details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 'Cancel a subscription by id' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions. The title 'Unsubscribe from Alerts' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.
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 by explaining the ownership restriction ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the soft-delete behavior, which helps the agent understand when it's appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so usage guidance is context-driven rather than directly comparative.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from Wikipedia page views to AI visibility checks, entity resolution, and Polymarket betting. No two tools appear overlapping in functionality; descriptions further clarify each tool's unique role.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structure (e.g., get_article_views, subscribe, resolve_entity). No mixing of conventions, and names are descriptive enough to infer purpose.
With 33 tools, the server is overloaded for its name 'wikiviews', which suggests a focused Wikipedia views tool. The set includes unrelated functionality like Polymarket arbitrage, memory storage, and Pipeworx data queries, making the scope feel excessive.
For the core domain of Wikipedia views, only 3 tools exist (get_article_views, get_project_views, get_top_articles), missing basic operations like list_articles_per_day. The unrelated tools are extensive, but the server's stated purpose is poorly served.