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 provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns specific fields and defaults to active subscriptions, which adds value beyond annotations. 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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Returns fields and usage suggestion are front-loaded.
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?
Simple tool with zero required params and no output schema; description covers purpose, return fields, and usage. Complete for this complexity.
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% with a single boolean parameter described. Description mentions active subscriptions but doesn't add new info beyond schema. Baseline 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?
Clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and lists return fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools subscribe/unsubscribe.
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?
Explicitly says when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Doesn't specify when not to use, but context is 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all answer questions; polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both find opportunities; and memory tools (remember, recall, forget) are separate but simple. This makes it hard for an agent to pick the right tool without careful reading.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, discover_tools), others noun_noun (entity_profile, amtrak_station_info), and some are single verbs (remember, forget). The Amtrak tools follow a pattern but the rest do not, leading to a chaotic mix.
With 35 tools but only 4 actually related to Amtrak, the server is severely over-scoped for its stated purpose. The majority of tools are unrelated, making it feel bloated and misnamed.
For an Amtrak server, the tool surface is severely incomplete: lacks booking, schedules, ticket info, delay details beyond worst delay, and station amenities. The tiny Amtrak subset is a mere fraction of what users would expect.