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, indicating a safe read. The description adds that it returns specific fields (id, type, etc.), which is useful but not critical. 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?
The description is two sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage context. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lists the return fields (id, type, etc.), which is helpful. It does not explain field meanings or pagination, but for a simple list of subscriptions, this is adequate.
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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'include_inactive'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline of 3.
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 verb 'list' and resource 'subscriptions', specifying 'the caller's active subscriptions'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by focusing on listing.
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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. This tells when to use it and implicitly suggests alternatives (subscribe, unsubscribe).
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, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical, and the five polymarket_* tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market opportunities. The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are distinct, as are subscriptions, but the routing and Polymarket clusters create real misselection risk.
All names are snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity), some are noun_verb or adjective_noun (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, recent_changes), and some are bare nouns/verbs (lookup, query, recall, relatedness). The 'polymarket_*' and 'ask_pipeworx*' families are consistent internally, but the overall set lacks a uniform verb-first convention.
With 34 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a server named 'Conceptnet' — the vast majority of tools belong to a separate Pipeworx data-access product, not a semantic-network API. While each tool has a use, the count feels bloated and the server name misrepresents the actual surface.
The ConceptNet portion is complete (lookup, query, relatedness cover graph traversal). The Pipeworx portion is also fairly complete: universal router, grounded mode, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscription lifecycle, memory, and feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing fetch without going through ask_pipeworx), but the meta-tools mostly fill them.