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, so the description adds value by specifying the scope ('caller's active subscriptions'), returned fields, and the optional parameter behavior. No contradictions, and it provides context beyond 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?
Two sentences: the first states purpose and return fields, the second gives usage guidance. 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, usage scenario, and parameter hint. No missing information.
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), which already has a description. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics 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 clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions the returned fields ('id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count'). It distinguishes from siblings 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 clear usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells when to use the tool effectively, 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.
The set mixes several near-overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, current_matches and match_scores largely duplicate each other, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) has fuzzy boundaries. Long descriptions help, but an agent would often need to read deeply to pick the right tool.
Most names are lowercase snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, scan_dependency, compare_entities), some are noun phrases (current_matches, match_info, entity_profile), and there are mixed prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, plain names). It is readable but not a coherent naming system.
35 tools is heavy, and only four of them (current_matches, match_info, match_scores, search_players) relate to the server's apparent cricket purpose. The rest are a sprawling general-purpose data/research/prediction-market/utility toolkit, making the surface feel bloated and off-scope.
As a cricket server, the surface is shallow: it has live matches, scores, match info, and player search, but no player stats, batting/bowling figures, team profiles, series/schedules, or historical match data. The many unrelated tools do not fill these obvious cricket-domain gaps.