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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the specific return fields and the option to include inactive, but the behavioral profile is well-covered by annotations. 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, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output fields. Second sentence gives usage advice. Efficient and well-structured.
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 simplicity of the tool (single optional boolean, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, and output fields. It could mention ordering or pagination, but not necessary for a basic list. A score of 4 reflects adequate completeness.
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% for the sole parameter include_inactive. The description mentions 'include_cancelled' but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides: 'Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false).' Baseline 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions', specifying the verb (list), resource (subscriptions), and scope (caller's active). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on reading existing subscriptions.
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 guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context is 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 tool pairs have overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. Also, remember/recall/forget overlap with general memory operations, and multiple polymarket tools overlap in edge detection. While the descriptions attempt to differentiate, an agent will frequently need to choose between nearly identical tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_beta).
Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities), camelCase (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and inconsistent verb usage (some start with verbs like 'search', others with nouns like 'dataset'). The polymarket and pipeworx prefixes are helpful, but overall patterns are unpredictable.
With 35 tools, this server has a very large surface area. While the domain is broad (Harvard Dataverse + Pipeworx data + Polymarket), the count feels heavy and includes many near-duplicate tools (ask_pipeworx variants) and niche tools that inflate the total. Many agents would benefit from a smaller, more focused set.
The Dataverse subset captures file metadata and search but lacks direct download/upload capabilities, causing dead ends for users who want to access actual data. The Polymarket subset lacks the ability to actually place orders despite extensive edge analysis. The Pipeworx subset covers many data queries but feels unfocused. Overall, there are notable gaps given the stated scope of the server.