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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns specific fields and lists active subscriptions, which aligns with annotations. No contradiction, but adds minimal 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 sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary 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?
Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no required, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Complete for this tool.
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?
Only one optional boolean parameter with schema description already covering it. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and lists returned fields. It differentiates 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 gives context on when to use it: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the guidance 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.
Several tools cluster around similar purposes—the three ask_pipeworx variants, the five polymarket_* analysis tools, and the meta/discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending)—so an agent could plausibly call the wrong one. However, the descriptions are exceptionally detailed with explicit 'use this when' guidance, which mitigates most confusion.
Names are almost all snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern: ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, remember, get_scoreboard, polymarket_fill_risk, etc. Pairs like remember/recall/forget and subscribe/unsubscribe are consistent, but the broader set mixes verbs, nouns, and prefixes (ask_, pipeworx_, polymarket_, get_, scan_) without a unified scheme.
36 tools is well over the 25-tool 'heavy' threshold, and the set spans multiple unrelated domains: sports data, a general structured-data router, prediction-market analysis, memory storage, and user feedback. Many tools are meta or auxiliary (suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, remember/recall/forget) that don't clearly belong to the server's core purpose, making the set feel bloated.
For a sports-data server, core score/news/standings/team/schedule operations exist, but player stats, game details, injuries, and playoff brackets are missing. For the broader Pipeworx data platform the surface is extensive, but the mix of domains makes it hard to declare the set complete for any single stated purpose.