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 as true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (id, type, params, etc.) and frames it as a review activity, which complements the annotations without 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 efficiently convey purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.
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 the simple input (one optional parameter) and annotations indicating safe read, the description adequately covers what the tool does, returns, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description lists the return fields, so it is complete enough.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the optional include_inactive parameter. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond the schema's definition, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 the caller's active subscriptions, specifying the verb 'List' and resource 'subscriptions,' and differentiates from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on listing. The sibling list includes subscribe and unsubscribe, so the purpose is distinct.
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 explicitly guides use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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, such as multiple data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and several prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). While descriptions attempt to differentiate, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Tool names use a mix of verb-initial (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) and noun-phrase patterns (entity_profile, dataset_info), with no consistent verb_noun structure. Naming is readable but lacks a predictable pattern.
With 34 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The broad scope (data querying, prediction markets, company research, local open data) somewhat justifies the count, but several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the various polymarket tools).
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data querying, company research, prediction market analysis, and memory management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no user authentication tools beyond subscriptions), but the surface is largely comprehensive for its intended purpose.