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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds return field details but no new behavioral context.
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 concise sentences: first covers purpose and output, second provides usage context. 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?
Simple read tool with one optional param and no output schema; description lists return fields. Annotations cover safety. Adequate for agent use.
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 covers 100% of parameters with description for include_inactive. Description adds no additional meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates returned fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.
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?
Explicitly advises use for reviewing subscriptions before adding or canceling. No when-not stated, but context with sibling tools suffices.
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.
Many tools are clearly distinct, but the ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are near-identical routers (beta currently matches stable exactly), and several prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) have overlapping use cases. Detailed descriptions mitigate but don't fully eliminate the risk of an agent picking the wrong member of a cluster.
Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, subscribe). Minor deviations like bare nouns (datasets, metadata) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), plus the branded ask_pipeworx variants, keep it from a perfect pattern but the style remains predictable.
34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a broad research platform; many are meta/utility tools (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions, discover_tools) tangential to the core data-access purpose. The server name suggests a small Baton Rouge Open Data server, making the actual count a poor match for that name.
Within its actual scope, coverage is strong: universal query, grounded mode, deep research, entity/comparison profiles, entity resolution, claim validation, prediction-market edge/arbitrage/fill-risk, memory, and subscriptions all have lifecycle-appropriate tool sets. Obvious gaps are hard to find; the main issue is that the set is over-inclusive rather than incomplete.