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, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds value by listing returned fields, confirming non-destructive nature. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no 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?
Simple tool with one optional boolean parameter. Description covers return fields sufficiently for a list operation. No missing context given the schema and annotations.
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% and parameter 'include_inactive' already has a description in the schema. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool lists active subscriptions and specifies exact returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by being a listing operation.
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?
Explicit guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Tells when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the implied disambiguation.
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 (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) has significant boundary overlap, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also cover heavily overlapping prediction-market territory, so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, scan_dependency). Minor deviations exist — entity_profile is noun-noun, brightdata_serp/brightdata_unlock use a vendor prefix, and remember/recall/forget are bare verbs — but the overall style is predictable and readable.
At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold that signals an over-heavy surface. While the server covers multiple domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), many of those domains carry redundant variants that could be consolidated, making the count feel bloated rather than well-scoped.
The surface covers the core workflows well: querying (ask_pipeworx variants), deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, discovery/onboarding, subscriptions (list/subscribe/unsubscribe), memory (remember/recall/forget), and feedback. Minor gaps exist — there is no direct tool to fetch a returned pipeworx:// citation URI, and memory lacks an explicit update operation — but agents can work around these.