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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields and defaulting to active subscriptions, which goes beyond these 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: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous words; every sentence is valuable.
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 no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes the only parameter 'include_inactive'. The description does not elaborate on this parameter beyond implying the default via 'active subscriptions', hence baseline score.
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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'subscriptions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by focusing on reviewing existing subscriptions.
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 the agent when to use the tool, though it could also mention alternatives like 'subscribe' or 'unsubscribe' explicitly.
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 toolset is largely distinct: scraping, research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools each have clear boundaries. The ask_pipeworx family and the six Polymarket tools are closely related variants, but their descriptions provide explicit usage guidance, so an agent can select correctly with attention.
Most tools use snake_case with descriptive names, but conventions are mixed: brand-prefixed noun phrases (crawlbase_scrape, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) sit alongside verb_noun tools (compare_entities, validate_claim) and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The result is readable but not predictable.
At 34 tools, the server spans several distinct domains (web scraping, structured data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback), making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused toolset. The count is beyond the 'heavy' threshold and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.
The research surface is thorough: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and identifier resolution cover most real-world data needs. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to fetch pipeworx:// resource URIs and no crawler management for the scraping side.