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 significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the non-destructive nature ('row is deactivated, not deleted') with a reference to data retention via 'recent_alerts'. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and enriches the agent's understanding.
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 tightly written with three sentences, each providing essential information: the action, the ownership rule, and the side-effect behavior. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers the purpose, the key constraint, and the effect on data. No output schema is present, but the description explains what happens (deactivation) sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 already documents the 'id' parameter clearly (100% coverage), but the description adds the crucial constraint that the id must belong to the caller ('your own subscriptions'). This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent validate the parameter's usage.
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 states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to cancel a subscription) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear but lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools such as 'subscribe' or 'list_subscriptions'.
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.
Most tools have distinct, well-described purposes, but clusters like ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded and the five polymarket_* tools have overlapping scopes that could cause misselection. The beta currently behaves identically to the stable router, and `recent` vs `recent_changes` vs `recent_alerts` are confusingly similar names for different domains.
All names use lowercase underscores, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are verbs (ask, compare, generate), some are nouns (entity_profile, recent, user), and some are adjectives (deep_research). There are coherent subfamilies (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions, remember/recall/forget), but the overall naming is a mix of conventions.
33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, making the surface heavy and hard to navigate. Many are highly specialized meta-tools (e.g., five Polymarket analyzers) that could be consolidated.
For a server named 'Codestats', only `recent` and `user` address coding stats, leaving major gaps in what that name implies. The broader data/research/betting capabilities are fairly rich, but the server's stated identity is under-served and there's no clear lifecycle coverage for any single domain.