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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it specifies the return fields and that it lists active subscriptions by default. It does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization details, but the annotations lower the burden.
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, front-loaded with the action and scope. The first sentence states what it does and what it returns; the second gives concrete usage guidance. Every word earns its place, 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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. The sibling tools subscribe and unsubscribe provide additional context, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential 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 schema covers the only parameter (include_inactive) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. It implicitly distinguishes active from inactive but does not explain the parameter's syntax or default behavior 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), and explicitly states the scope (caller's, active). It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's function unambiguous. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools 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 clear usage context: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implies when to use the tool relative to subscribe and unsubscribe, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives. It lacks a 'when not to use' clause, but the scenarios are clear enough.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same data sources, and the Polymarket family (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has blurred boundaries. Agents would struggle to pick the right one without reading every description carefully.
Naming is mostly snake_case but follows no consistent verb_noun pattern. Verbs vary widely (ask_, get_, list_, search_, compare_, scan_, validate_, remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, discover, generate, resolve, suggest) and many tools are bare nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges). The inconsistency makes the set feel ad hoc.
34 tools is on the heavy side, and the count is inflated by many near-duplicate data-router and prediction-market tools. The server is named 'iconify' yet only 3 of 34 tools actually relate to icons, indicating poor scoping for the stated purpose.
For the icon domain, the surface is minimal (list, search, get) with no create/update/delete. For the broader data/prediction-market domain, there are significant gaps in lifecycle coverage (e.g., subscriptions have create/cancel but no pause/resume, and the memory tools lack namespacing). The mixed focus means no single domain is fully covered.