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 the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return fields and scoping results to 'the caller,' which clarifies the data boundary. No contradictions with 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action and result, and then gives a concise usage pointer. Every word contributes either to understanding what the tool returns or when to use it, with no redundancy.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers purpose, return contents, and usage context. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and why to call it, making it complete for effective invocation.
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 single parameter (include_inactive) is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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') and identifies the exact resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'). It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's scope unmistakable, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool relative to subscription management, and implicitly contrasts with subscribe/unsubscribe operations.
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 set mixes several overlapping query surfaces: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/discover_tools/suggest_questions all serve related retrieval/discovery purposes, and the five polymarket_* tools have similar opportunity-finding goals. Only the unusually detailed descriptions save some tools from misselection; an agent would struggle to quickly pick the right one.
Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or prefixed_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, polymarket_edges, scan_dependency). Minor inconsistencies exist — bare nouns like gene/variant/search sit alongside compound names like generate_llms_txt, and the pipeworx_ prefix isn't applied to ask_pipeworx/deep_research — but the overall style is recognizable and predictable.
36 tools is too many for a coherent server, especially since the domains are largely unrelated: 5 gnomAD genomics tools, 20+ Pipeworx/Polymarket data tools, memory CRUD, subscription management, and a couple of web-dev utilities. The count doesn't align with a single obvious scope and would overwhelm an agent selecting among them.
Within the major subdomains coverage is strong: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have full lifecycle tools, and Polymarket has edge detection plus fill-risk checking. However, there are notable gaps — no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI despite deep_research promising resolvable citations, and the gnomAD surface lacks batch queries, coverage, or constraint data for a server named Gnomad.