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?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the safety profile is covered. The description adds extra behavioral context: return fields, default filtering to active subscriptions, and caller scoping. It omits potential limits/errors, but for a simple list this is sufficient.
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-loaded with purpose, then return fields and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 one well-documented parameter, thorough annotations, and a return field list in the description, the description fully compensates for the missing output schema. It covers what, when, and why.
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 schema already documents include_inactive with its default. The description's mention of 'active subscriptions' aligns with the parameter but doesn't add new syntax or behavior details. 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 states a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'the caller's active subscriptions', and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on review. It also enumerates return fields, making the tool's scope explicit.
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 gives explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel', which directly inform when to use this tool relative to subscribe/unsubscribe. This is actionable guidance.
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.
ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, creating real ambiguity between two tools. The polymarket cluster (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research) has overlapping edge-finding purposes that rely on reading long descriptions to separate, and the DNS tools are so few that an agent cannot tell this is a 'dns' server at all.
The set mixes at least four naming conventions: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), verb_noun (dns_lookup, validate_claim, discover_tools), noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts), and brand-prefixed families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). Each cluster is internally consistent, but the overall pattern is incoherent, including stray names like reverse_dns that invert the verb_first convention.
At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's name: only 3 of 34 tools (dns_lookup, dns_lookup_all, reverse_dns) relate to DNS. The remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated domains (data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning), making the toolkit feel like a mislabeled grab-bag rather than a scoped server.
Judged against the server's stated 'dns' purpose, coverage is thin: read-only lookups only, with no WHOIS, DNSSEC, zone management, or write operations. Judged against the dominant inferred domain (a data-research/prediction-market platform), the surface is quite complete — query, grounded verification, deep research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, discovery, subscriptions, alerts, and feedback all exist — though there is no tool to directly read a pipeworx:// citation URI.