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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, etc.) and confirming it only shows the caller's own subscriptions, going beyond annotation coverage.
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 concise and well-structured: one sentence states what it does and what it returns, the second gives practical usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains the result fields, scope (caller's own), and provides actionable use cases. The rich annotations and full schema coverage mean no critical information is missing.
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 input schema fully documents the single optional parameter include_inactive with a clear description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so with 100% schema coverage a baseline score of 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 tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on review and lookup, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 context: use it to review current monitoring before adding more, or to find an id to cancel. It does not explicitly name alternatives but clearly implies when this tool is appropriate relative to subscribe/unsubscribe, so it earns a 4.
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.
Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,529-tool catalog, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket suite also has ambiguous boundaries (bet_research vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_arbitrage), and scan_competitor_ai_presence simply wraps ai_visibility_check, so agents may struggle to choose the right tool.
All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-led names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, scan_dependency, validate_claim, hts_search) with noun-led names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges, ai_visibility_check). Variant suffixes like ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded add further inconsistency, so the naming is coherent enough but not predictable enough for a 4.
At 33 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' in the rubric. Even though the broad data-research scope justifies a larger surface, the count feels bloated because several tools are near-duplicates (e.g., ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) or wrappers (scan_competitor_ai_presence), making the set heavier than necessary.
The server covers its core domains thoroughly: data querying (ask_pipeworx family, deep_research), entity resolution and comparison (resolve_entity, entity_profile, compare_entities), verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), HTS tariff lookup (search + detail), subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), and memory (remember/recall/forget). Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription-update endpoint and no generic raw-source export, but these are workaround-able and do not cause agent failures.