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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond this by listing the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and clarifying that it lists active subscriptions by default, which aligns with the include_inactive parameter. No contradictions with 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then returns fields, then usage guidance. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no filler or 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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states what it lists, the fields returned, and the intended use cases. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by listing return fields in the description.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter include_inactive, so the schema already fully explains its meaning and default. The description's mention of 'active subscriptions' indirectly reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, and specifies the scope (caller's active subscriptions) and the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for usage relative to subscribe/unsubscribe alternatives, even though it doesn't name them directly.
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 tool set is a mix of country lookups and many unrelated Pipeworx tools (e.g., prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). While the country-specific tools are distinct, the overall set is a hodgepodge, making it difficult for an agent to determine which tools are relevant to a given task.
Naming conventions are mixed: some use verb_noun (search_countries), some noun_verb (countries_by_currency), some single verbs (forget, recall), and some phrases (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx). No consistent pattern is followed.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'countries'. Only about 6-7 tools are actually related to countries; the rest are unrelated (Pipeworx services, prediction markets, etc.), creating an extreme mismatch between the server name and its content.
For the country domain, the tool set includes search and lookups by code/currency/language/region but lacks basic CRUD, comparisons, maps, or sorting. Additionally, the presence of many unrelated tools dilutes completeness for the stated purpose.