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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the returned fields and noting that it lists active subscriptions by default, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to use this tool.
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 no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose and return fields; the second gives usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It names the returned fields, provides usage context, and the annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing return fields. Given the tool's simplicity, no further details are necessary.
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% with the include_inactive parameter clearly described ('Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false)'). The description does not add further parameter-specific details, and the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter semantics well.
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 lists the return fields, making the scope clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by framing its use as 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.'
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 clear use cases: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implies when to use the tool (before subscribe/unsubscribe) and references the alternatives indirectly. It does not name sibling tools explicitly but gives sufficient context.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, while deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research blur the same routing/grounding line. The polymarket_* family also has five tools covering edges, arbitrage, fill risk, and edge decay with significant functional overlap, making misselection likely despite very detailed descriptions.
Naming mixes verb_noun tools (get_pair, compare_entities, suggest_questions) with noun-style tools (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). The polymarket_ and pipeworx_ prefixes add some structure, but overall the naming is inconsistent and doesn't follow a predictable pattern.
The server is named 'exchangerate' but exposes 33 tools, only two of which (get_pair, get_rates) relate to exchange rates. Even as a general data platform 33 tools is at the extreme high end, and for the stated server purpose the count is wildly inappropriate.
For an exchange-rate server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no historical rate lookup, no amount conversion, no supported-currency listing, and no rate-change monitoring. The actual tool content covers a broad research platform, but that is entirely mismatched with the server name, leaving the implied exchange-rate domain almost completely uncovered.