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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying that the list is scoped to the caller, includes only active subscriptions by default, and returning the exact field set. This goes beyond annotations.
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 concise, information-dense sentences. The first states the purpose and return fields; the second gives usage guidance. No redundant words or repetition of schema/annotation details.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists all return fields and clearly explains the tool's scope. With a single optional parameter and clear sibling context (subscribe/unsubscribe), this is complete enough for a read-only list operation. Minor omissions like pagination or sorting are not critical here.
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 single parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its default behavior ('default false'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles the parameter.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('active subscriptions') and names the exact return fields (id, type, params, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, making its function immediately obvious.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before adding more' and 'to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear usage context and implicitly differentiates from subscribe/unsubscribe, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 purposes, aided by detailed descriptions (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded). However, some overlap exists among Pipeworx-based tools (compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes, validate_claim) that could cause confusion without careful reading.
Snake_case is used, but naming patterns are mixed: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others with nouns or prefixes (box_get_file, entity_profile). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.
At 31 tools, the server covers an unusually broad set of domains (cloud storage, data queries, betting, memory, subscriptions). This is on the heavy side and could benefit from splitting into more focused servers.
Gaps exist: Box storage lacks create/update/delete, Polymarket tools offer analysis but no execution, and some data domains (e.g., weather) have only indirect coverage. The surface feels uneven across the wide scope.