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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details: it lists only active subscriptions (unless include_inactive is true) and specifies the exact fields returned, which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Three short sentences, each adding value: the first states the core purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third gives usage guidance. No filler or 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?
The tool is simple with a single optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, return fields, and when to use it. The parameter is fully documented in the schema, so there are no significant gaps.
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?
The only parameter, include_inactive, has a full description in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not mention it, but the schema fully explains it, so the baseline of 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 and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It also enumerates the return fields, which reinforces the purpose. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by being a read-only listing operation.
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 usage context: use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more subscriptions, or to find an id to cancel. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
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 server name 'Dropbox' leads agents to expect file storage operations, but only 5 of 35 tools are Dropbox-specific. The majority are Pipeworx data lookup and prediction market tools, creating a confusing mismatch between server identity and toolset.
Dropbox tools consistently use 'dropbox_verb_noun', but Pipeworx tools mix naming styles: some use 'verb_noun' like 'validate_claim', others use descriptive phrases like 'entity_profile' or 'recent_changes'. The overall set lacks a unified naming convention.
35 tools is high, and the majority are unrelated to the server's name. The Dropbox subset alone is appropriately scoped with 5 tools, but the inclusion of 30 misc data tools makes the set feel bloated and unfocused for a server purportedly dedicated to Dropbox.
For the Dropbox domain, the tools cover only basic operations (create folder, download, list, search, metadata) missing update, delete, share. For the Pipeworx domain, the toolset is extensive, but the overall combination lacks completeness for any single coherent purpose.