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 readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds the scope (caller's subscriptions) and returned fields, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and returned fields, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words.
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 strong annotations and full schema param coverage, the description is complete. It covers why and when to use it, and lists return fields.
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 a clear description of the only parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifies returned fields, and 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?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios: review before adding more subscriptions or find an ID to cancel. While it doesn't list alternatives directly, 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.
The tool set contains multiple clusters with heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same underlying data sources, making it ambiguous which to choose. Similarly, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and bet_research all target prediction-market opportunities with fuzzy boundaries between them. The three DigitalNZ tools (search, record, search_within) are distinct, but the rest of the set obscures their purpose.
Most tools use snake_case with descriptive names, and the polymarket_* cluster is consistent among itself. However, conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (validate_claim, discover_tools, remember), some are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes), and ask_pipeworx_beta breaks the pattern with a suffix variant. The naming is readable overall but not uniform.
At 33 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a 'too heavy' count. The vast majority of tools belong to the Pipeworx data-query and prediction-market domains rather than DigitalNZ, which is the server's stated name. A focused DigitalNZ server would need closer to 5-10 tools; a Pipeworx server would still be over-packed at 33 given the functional overlap.
For the DigitalNZ domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only search, record, and search_within exist, with no browse, filter, facet, or contribution capabilities. The Pipeworx side is more complete but still has gaps (e.g., no direct per-source query tools, and several tools soft-fail on sunset APIs). The server tries to cover two unrelated domains and satisfies neither fully.