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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. Description adds that it returns specific fields and that the include_inactive parameter affects results, offering extra behavioral detail beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
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?
With only one optional parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, return fields, usage advice, and parameter behavior.
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 covers all parameters (100% coverage) with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline.
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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates returned fields, distinguishing it from related 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 when to use: to review existing subscriptions before adding more or to find an ID to cancel, providing clear context.
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 with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists between research tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could confuse an agent. The Greenhouse-specific tools are clearly separated by the 'greenhouse_' prefix, aiding disambiguation.
Tool names follow snake_case but vary in style: some have a prefix like 'greenhouse_' or 'pipeworx_', others do not (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research). The verb-object pattern is inconsistent (e.g., 'generate_llms_txt' vs. 'entity_profile'), making naming less predictable.
35 tools is excessive for a single server, especially one named 'Greenhouse' which implies an ATS focus. The set aggregates multiple domains (ATS, data research, memory, prediction markets) without clear scoping, overwhelming the agent and reducing coherence.
The Pipeworx/data research subset is fairly complete with lookups, comparisons, verification, and subscriptions. However, the Greenhouse ATS subset lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving notable gaps. The mixed domains make overall completeness uneven.