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 signal readOnly and idempotent. Description adds return field names and default active-only behavior, complementing annotations without contradiction.
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 defines purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with essential info.
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?
Despite no output schema, description lists return fields (id, type, etc.) and explains usage context. Tool is simple with one optional param, so description is complete.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not elaborate on the include_inactive parameter beyond what schema provides, so no added value.
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?
Clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'subscriptions', specifies it returns caller's active ones, and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe/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?
Explicitly advises to use before adding more subscriptions or to find an id to cancel, providing practical context. Lacks explicit when-not-to, but implied by sibling tool existence.
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 tool clusters have poorly defined boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, the five polymarket tools all orbit 'find/validate trading edges', and ai_visibility_check overlaps heavily with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The memory and subscription tools are distinct, but the core query/edge clusters would cause frequent misselection.
Naming conventions are mixed across the set: the ask_pipeworx* family uses verb+product, the polymarket_* family uses domain-prefixed nouns, fcc_regulation and fcc_regulations_search differ in singular/plural and lack a verb, and tools like discover_tools, entity_profile, and generate_llms_txt each follow different patterns. No single predictable convention holds across the server.
33 tools is heavy on its own, but the count is especially inappropriate given the server is named 'Fcc Regulations': only 2 of the 33 tools actually serve FCC regulatory text, while the other 31 tools belong to a general-purpose Pipeworx data-query platform. The set is far too broad for the declared scope.
For the stated FCC-regulations purpose, the two relevant tools cover search and full-text retrieval, but there is no change tracking, no notification of rule updates, no historical/version comparison, and no adjacent FCC filings/licensing data despite the server name implying broader FCC coverage. The extra 31 unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, so an agent expecting FCC completeness would hit dead ends.