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, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns specific fields and default behavior (active vs include_inactive).
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 concise sentences with no fluff. Purpose and usage are front-loaded.
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 boolean and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know.
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 already describes the one parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds context about caller's subscriptions and implicitly relates to the parameter.
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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies returned fields. Distinguishes from siblings 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?
Explicitly says to use it for reviewing monitored subscriptions before adding more or to find an ID to cancel, providing clear when-to-use guidance.
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 tool set is a mix of 5 Google Calendar tools and 31 unrelated Pipeworx tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile). Even within Pipeworx, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have highly overlapping purposes, making it very difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use.
Naming conventions are chaotic. The Google Calendar tools follow a consistent gcal_ prefix, but the rest use various patterns: pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, single words (remember, recall), and others (bet_research, scan_dependency). There is no overarching pattern.
With 36 tools, the count is high, but only 5 are relevant to Google Calendar. The remaining 31 tools are from a completely different domain (Pipeworx data access, Polymarket betting, etc.), making the tool count severely inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.
For Google Calendar, the tools provide basic CRUD (create, get, list, search, list_calendars) but lack update and delete functionality. The vast number of unrelated tools does not compensate for these gaps. The overall surface is incomplete for the calendar domain.