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=false. The description adds the field list but no additional behavioral traits beyond that.
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, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing usage guidance with no redundant information.
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?
Although no output schema exists, the description lists return fields. The tool is simple and the description covers its essential aspects, though pagination details are omitted.
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% and the description adds no extra meaning to the include_inactive parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 explicitly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing 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?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' though it does not specify when not to use.
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 have overlapping purposes, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and Polymarket analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). While descriptions are detailed, the similarity in function could confuse an agent trying to select the right one.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities). No mixing of conventions (camelCase, PascalCase) is observed, making it predictable.
With 34 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The majority are Pipeworx tools covering many domains, but the count exceeds the typical sweet spot of 3-15 tools. Some consolidation could reduce redundancy.
The tool surface covers a wide range of data access and analysis (Nantes open data, SEC filings, Polymarket, entity comparison, dependency scanning). Minor gaps exist, such as limited Nantes data operations (only query and info) and some tools requiring external accounts, but the overall scope is comprehensive.