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 valuable behavior beyond annotations: 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions' and 'The row is deactivated (not deleted)' are not present in the annotations. It explains the side effect on historical data, which is helpful for the agent.
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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys constraints and behavioral nuance. Every word 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the action, ownership constraint, and the deactivation effect. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool and existing annotations make this acceptable.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds the ownership constraint ('only cancel your own'), which is not in the schema, giving additional semantic meaning about what ids are valid.
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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the deactivation behavior ('not deleted') and ownership enforcement, making its purpose 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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to cancel a subscription) and provides important context: ownership is enforced, and historical events remain available via recent_alerts. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.
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 fairly distinct action/resource targets and the descriptions carefully separate entry points like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical clone of ask_pipeworx right now, and a few related pairs (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, stat_ee_find_table fetch_latest vs estonia_average_wage) add ambiguity.
Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and verb-led names like resolve_entity, query_table, and suggest_questions are clear. But the set mixes conventions: bare nouns (subjects, recall, forget), adjective-noun phrases (recent_alerts, recent_changes), no-verb names (estonia_average_wage, table_meta), and multiple prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, stat_ee_*). It is readable but not a single predictable pattern.
36 tools is well above the 15-tool threshold for a well-scoped server, and the set spans many unrelated domains: Estonian statistics, Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, npm scanning, memory, and subscriptions. There is also clear redundancy (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check could be folded into scan_competitor_ai_presence). This feels scattered for a server named 'Stat Ee'.
For the broad data-research/agent-assistant purpose, key workflows are well covered: discovery/query/grounded/deep research, entity resolution/profile/compare/validate/recent changes, complete memory CRUD, subscription CRUD with alert feeds, and a full Polymarket edge/arb/fill-risk suite. The main gap is not missing operations within these workflows but rather the overall scope being too broad and unfocused.