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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns specific fields (id, type, params, etc.) and implies default filtering to active subscriptions, which is consistent and adds behavioral context.
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: the first clearly states purpose and return fields, the second gives usage guidance. No extraneous words, 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?
For a simple list tool with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description sufficiently states purpose, return fields, and usage context. No output schema is needed given the listed fields.
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% for the single parameter include_inactive. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
The description states 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' This is a specific verb (List) and resource (subscriptions), and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and 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?
The description advises 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly 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.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and discover_tools all occupy adjacent lookup/discovery territory. The four Codewars tools are clear, but the broader set is genuinely hard to navigate.
Most names follow a readable snake_case verb_noun style with useful prefixes like polymarket_ and user_, but there are one-word outliers (kata, user, forget, recall, remember) and inconsistent phrasing such as ai_visibility_check versus scan_competitor_ai_presence. The naming is mostly predictable but not uniform.
35 tools is already heavy, and the server is named Codewars while only 4 of the 35 tools relate to Codewars. The remaining 31 tools belong to a completely different Pipeworx research/prediction-market/brand-visibility product, making the count both excessive and fundamentally mismatched to the server's stated identity.
For a Codewars server, the surface is severely incomplete: you can fetch a single kata and a user's profile, authored list, and completed list, but there is no search, no kata listing by rank/tag, no solution submission or training workflow, and no way to manage authored kata. The unrelated Pipeworx tools do not fill these gaps; they point at a different domain entirely.