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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context: it scopes to 'caller's' subscriptions and specifies return fields plus the default of active-only. No contradictions, but it doesn't discuss potential edge cases like empty results or pagination; however, the annotations carry the safety burden.
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 with zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then lists return fields, then gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient.
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, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The rich annotations cover side effects, and the description compensates for the lack of an output schema by listing the return fields. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 only parameter ('include_inactive' with 'Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false)'), so the schema fully explains the parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond setting context with 'active subscriptions', matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 action (List) and resource (the caller's active subscriptions), and lists the returned fields (id, type, params, etc.), making the tool's purpose concrete. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on read-only retrieval.
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 tells when to use it: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This clearly implies the tool is for review and pre-cancel/id lookup, and indirectly contrasts with subscribe/unsubscribe alternatives.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are nearly identical, with the beta explicitly matching the stable version. Additionally, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap in purpose, creating some selection ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_joke, search_jokes, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Even the more noun-like names like entity_profile and pipeworx_feedback fit the readable convention. No mixed camelCase or erratic verb usage.
With 34 tools, the count is far above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. The server is named 'dadjokes' but only 3 tools actually serve that purpose; the remaining 31 are an unrelated Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, making the scope feel bloated and misaligned.
For the nominal dad-joke domain, the surface is complete (get, random, search). However, the intended domain is ambiguous given the massive unrelated toolset; it's unclear what a user should expect the server to cover, and the analysis/prediction tools lack obvious CRUD or management counterparts.