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, idempotentHint, and nondestructive. The description adds return field details and default filtering, but this is moderate incremental value.
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 no wasted words. It states the purpose, return fields, and usage guidance upfront.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lists return fields. With one parameter and strong annotations, it covers essential behavioral and structural aspects. Minor omission like pagination is not critical.
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% with a clear description for 'include_inactive'. The description does not add further parameter info, so baseline score of 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 the tool lists active subscriptions, using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe which perform different actions.
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 advises using the tool to review current subscriptions before adding more or to find an id to cancel. This provides clear context, though no explicit when-not or alternatives are given.
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.
Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same queries, and the five polymarket_* tools overlap in opportunity scanning. entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes also pull similar company data, making tool selection genuinely ambiguous.
All tool names are snake_case with a mostly verb-first convention (ask_pipeworx, scan_dependency, validate_claim, resolve_entity). A few noun-first names like polymarket_edges, entity_profile, and recent_alerts deviate slightly, but the pattern is predictable and readable throughout the 34-tool set.
At 34 tools, the surface is heavy for what the server name (Data Cincinnati) implies, and only 3 tools actually relate to Cincinnati open data. The rest spans prediction markets, npm analysis, AI visibility, memory, and subscriptions, suggesting either scope creep or a misleading server name.
The research workflow is fairly covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), query (ask_pipeworx), grounding (ask_pipeworx_grounded), verification (validate_claim), profiling (entity_profile), comparison (compare_entities), and monitoring (subscribe, recent_changes). However, notable gaps exist — no direct single-source raw query, no export/visualization, no subscription or alert management details beyond basic CRUD, and the Cincinnati-specific surface is thin (no geospatial or full-catalog access).