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 destructiveHint. Description adds value by listing return fields and explaining the include_inactive parameter's effect, no contradiction.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no verbose wording. Every sentence adds value.
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 parameter, description covers return fields, default behavior, and use cases. Annotations handle safety. No output schema needed.
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%, but description adds meaning by implying default behavior (active only) and clarifying the purpose of include_inactive beyond the schema description.
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 lists return fields. It distinguishes from siblings 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 says to use this before adding more subscriptions or to find an id to cancel, providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but is sufficiently clear.
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 tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all query the same underlying data catalog in similar ways. The descriptions provide detailed usage guidance, but the query family and the five-strong Polymarket family still create real misselection risk. Memory, subscription, and FCC tools are clearly distinct.
Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow recognizable verb_noun or prefixed-family patterns (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). The main deviations are bare one-word names like datasets, metadata, query, remember, and forget, plus a few noun-first names like entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage. Overall the naming is readable and predictable, with only minor inconsistencies.
At 34 tools, this server is well past the 25+ threshold and feels overloaded. It bundles a general-purpose data-query gateway, FCC open-data access, Polymarket analytics, AI-visibility scanning, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, and llms.txt generation into one surface. Each functional area is small on its own, but the combined set would be more coherent split into several focused servers.
The core data lifecycle is well covered: discovery (suggest_questions, discover_tools), single queries (ask_pipeworx), grounded/evidence-backed answers, deep multi-source research, entity resolution/profiling/comparison, change feeds, and fact-checking all exist. FCC open data has search, schema, and query tools, and subscriptions/memory have full CRUD-style coverage. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no direct pipeworx:// URI fetch tool, no enumeration of all discoverable data sources), but they do not block typical workflows.