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. The description adds useful context by listing the return fields (id, type, params, etc.) and clarifying that only active subscriptions are listed by default, which complements the annotations without 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?
The description is two concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and no unnecessary filler. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does and returns, the second explains when to use it.
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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: it lists return fields, specifies the default behavior (active only), and gives usage examples. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema fully describes the single parameter include_inactive with a clear description ('Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false).'). The description doesn't add further parameter info, but given the 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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: 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing rather than modifying.
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 clear 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 employ the tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.
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.
ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and multiple other tools overlap heavily: ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, discover_tools/suggest_questions, and polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edges/polymarket_edge_tracker all sit in nearly the same functional space. An agent would struggle to reliably select the right tool among these clusters.
Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: get_/search_ verbs coexist with product-prefixed names (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), noun-style names (entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare verbs (remember, forget). The conventions are not chaotic, but they are not predictable enough for a coherent set.
37 tools is far too many for a server named 'Brreg No,' which should be a focused Norwegian business-registry lookup server. Only a handful of tools actually target Brreg (search_entities, get_entity, get_accounts, get_roles, get_sub_entity, search_sub_entities); the rest are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/meta tools that drown out the core purpose.
The core Brreg read surface is present: entity search/lookup, sub-entities, financial accounts, and roles. However, there is no Brreg change/update feed or document-level coverage, and the unrelated generic research tools do not fill that gap. For a registry-focused server, the coverage is workable but not complete.