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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds detail about the return fields but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
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 covering action, return fields, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with the core purpose, every sentence earns its place. No unnecessary text.
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 tool's simplicity, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It specifies returned fields, usage context, and works well with sibling tools for subscribe/unsubscribe.
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?
The schema already describes the single parameter 'include_inactive' with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning or usage details beyond the schema. 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 the action (list subscriptions) and the resource (caller's active subscriptions). It specifies the returned fields. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the mention of reviewing before adding or canceling implies it's for inspection, not mutation.
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 states when to use the tool: to review monitored items before adding more or to find an ID to cancel. This provides clear context for its usage, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.
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.
The FDA-specific tools are distinct, but they are mixed with many generic Pipeworx tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research, entity_profile) that have overlapping purposes. This creates significant ambiguity for an agent trying to choose the right tool for FDA-related queries.
Tool names follow two inconsistent patterns: FDA tools use 'fda_device_*' (consistent), while generic tools use various patterns like 'ask_pipeworx', 'deep_research', 'remember', etc. The mix of snake_case, camelCase, and descriptive phrases lacks coherence.
With 37 tools, the count is high for what is intended as an FDA devices server. Only 6 tools are directly FDA-related; the rest are generic and dilute the purpose. The scope is mismatched, making the tool count inappropriate.
The FDA tools cover key areas: 510k search, adverse events, PMA, recalls, company profiles. However, the server is incomplete for its name because it lacks many tools that a comprehensive FDA devices server would have, and the generic tools don't fill those gaps.