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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds return field details but no new behavioral traits. 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: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.
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 read-only list tool with complete schema and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and output. No output schema needed.
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% (one param with description). The description does not repeat param info, adding no value beyond schema. 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and lists return fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 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 explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear context for when to use it, though it does not include explicit when-not-to-use statements.
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 tools are close cousins: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying data catalog, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage share a betting-research niche. The eBird tools are clearly a different cluster, but the server carries so many unrelated domains that an agent may struggle to pick the right category member (e.g., stable router vs beta router vs grounded router).
Almost everything is snake_case, but the pattern is not uniform: there are plenty of verb_noun names (find_species, list_subregions, scan_competitor_ai_presence) mixed with bare consumer-style names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, deep_research) and short helpers (recall, forget, remember). No mixed scripting-case chaos, but no consistent verb_noun or noun_verb system either.
36 tools is heavy for a server that calls itself Ebird: only ~5 tools actually relate to bird observation, while the rest span Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket betting, legal/regulatory analyzers, memory, subscriptions, competency scanning, npm package checking, and llms.txt generation. The count would be reasonable for a broad data platform, but the server's stated identity and the bundled tool set do not match, making the scope feel bloated and incoherent.
For a bird-centric server, the surface is thin: you can find a species, list subregions, and pull recent/notable observations, but you cannot get coordinated eBird atlases, hotspot details, species life-history stats, or region-based species lists. For the larger set of unrelated tools, completeness is impossible to gauge about a missing domain; the eBird purpose feels unfinished even though the miscellaneous tools are overloaded.