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, destructiveHint. Description adds value by specifying return fields and scope (caller's active subscriptions). No contradictions.
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 and return fields. Zero wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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 annotations and schema, description covers purpose, usage, and return fields. No output schema exists, but description lists fields. Could mention 'per-caller' scope already implied.
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 parameter 'include_inactive' well-described. Description does not add further detail about the parameter, so baseline of 3 applies.
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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates return fields (id, type, params, etc.). Distinguishes itself 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 says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Provides clear context for when to use, though no explicit when-not or alternatives beyond implied differentiation.
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 groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket research tools, visibility checks), despite detailed descriptions. An agent may struggle to choose between closely related options.
Tool names mix snake_case verb_noun patterns (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities) with noun-heavy compound names (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, deep_research) and single-word names (e.g., query, recall). No consistent convention.
With 34 tools, the surface is heavy for a research/data server. Many tools are variants of core capabilities (ask_pipeworx, polymarket edges), suggesting consolidation would improve usability.
The server covers a broad range: data research, prediction markets, entity profiles, monitoring. However, the abundance of specialized variants and gaps in unified workflows (e.g., needing separate tools for simple vs grounded queries) reduce completeness.