list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format (fields) and the scope ('caller's active subscriptions'), which helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 and front-loaded with the primary function, followed by return fields and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no repetition or filler.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers the return fields, default behavior (active subscriptions), and a practical use case. Given the rich annotations and small schema, nothing critical is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter include_inactive, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description does not add further syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It also lists the exact fields returned (id, type, params, etc.), distinguishing it from subscribe/unsubscribe and other sibling tools. The additional guidance about reviewing subscriptions before adding more reinforces its purpose.
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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like unsubscribe, but the context is clear enough for a list operation.
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.
The ask_pipeworx family is a major confusion source: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research heavily overlap with the base router. polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage and discover_tools vs suggest_questions also have fuzzy boundaries, though long descriptions partially mitigate the overlap.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_claim, resolve_entity, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt). A few bare verbs (remember, recall, forget) and noun-style names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) deviate slightly, but the overall style is predictable and readable.
34 tools is heavy and spans several unrelated domains: Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, advice slips, npm dependency checks, and llms.txt generation. The count is inflated by near-duplicate research routers and disconnected outliers like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency, making the set feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused server.
The Pipeworx research and prediction-market surfaces are quite complete (ask, grounded, deep research, entity profile, compare, resolve, validate, subscriptions with full lifecycle, memory with save/recall/delete). However, the server is named 'advice' yet the advice domain only has three thin tools (get/search/random) with no other operations, and the mixed domains leave obvious dead ends for any single stated purpose.