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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying that only the caller's subscriptions are listed and that it returns specific fields like created_at and fire_count.
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, no wasted words. The most critical information (what it lists, what fields it returns, and when to use it) is front-loaded and efficient.
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 and no output schema required, the description provides all necessary information: scope (caller's subscriptions), return fields, and usage recommendations. No gaps.
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 fully covers the single optional parameter include_inactive with its description. The description's mention of 'active subscriptions' implicitly adds context for the parameter's effect, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the return fields (id, type, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by framing the purpose as reviewing before adding or finding 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?
Description explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like subscribe or unsubscribe.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes within their own clusters, and the GSC tools are clearly separated. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the several Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) can be confused without reading each description closely.
Names are broadly snake_case and readable, with some useful prefixes (gsc_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). But conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun_compound (bet_research, entity_profile), and some are bare verbs (forget, recall), which prevents a predictable pattern.
35 tools is heavy for any single server, but it is especially problematic given the server is named Google_search_console while only 4 of the 35 tools actually relate to Search Console. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx/Polymarket research toolkit that would be far more coherent as its own server.
Relative to the stated Google Search Console purpose, the set is missing common operations such as submitting/removing sitemaps, requesting indexing, or managing URL inspections. The unrelated Pipeworx tools are extensive in their own domains but do not fill these gaps, leaving the GSC surface incomplete.