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 convey read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds value by listing the exact fields returned and the optional 'include_inactive' behavior, which goes 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?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. 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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers purpose, returned fields, and usage context. Nothing is missing.
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 single parameter is described in schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by focusing on listing.
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 when to use: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear usage context, though it doesn't detail when not to use.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. Overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded are explicitly differentiated by use case (casual vs high-stakes) and refusal behavior.
Names are mostly consistent using lowercase underscores, but there is a mix of verb-initial (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt) and noun-initial (edgar_company_facts, polymarket_arbitrage) patterns, which slightly reduces predictability.
37 tools is high, but the server covers a broad domain of authoritative data sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, etc.). While it exceeds the typical 15-tool threshold, each tool serves a distinct data need and the count feels justified for the scope.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data retrieval and analysis: discovery (discover_tools), single queries (ask_pipeworx), grounded lookups (ask_pipeworx_grounded), multi-source research (deep_research), entity profiles, comparisons, historical data, and subscription monitoring. No major gaps are evident.