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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the return fields and clarifying that only active subscriptions are returned by default, which complements the annotations without repeating them.
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, with the main action front-loaded and no wasted words. It immediately states what the tool does, lists key return fields, and ends with practical usage guidance.
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 (one optional parameter), rich annotations, and the explicit list of return fields, the description covers all necessary context. It tells the agent what the tool returns, when to use it, and how the single parameter affects results.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter include_inactive, which is fully explained in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on review of existing subscriptions.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for the agent.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. Potential confusion exists between similar tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the descriptions differentiate them well. The high number of tools across multiple domains could still cause some ambiguity, but overall an agent can distinguish them.
Naming patterns are mixed. Some subgroups follow consistent patterns (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, get_*), but overall the set includes verb_noun (list_subscriptions, get_rate, remember) and noun_verb (entity_profile, deep_research) without a unified convention. The mixture of imperative and descriptive names reduces predictability.
34 tools is excessive for a single server, bundling unrelated domains (currency, memory, data query, prediction markets, dependency scanning). This scope could be split into multiple servers for better coherence. The high count may overwhelm agents and increases the risk of misselection.
Each sub-domain (e.g., currency, memory, Polymarket) has reasonable coverage with common operations present. However, the server name 'exchange' is misleading—it suggests a narrower focus. Some gaps exist (e.g., no batch currency conversion, no direct Polymarket market detail tool). Overall, the set covers many tasks but lacks a unified purpose.