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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('caller's subscriptions') and the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), giving a clear behavioral picture without contradicting the 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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns and when to use it. The annotations cover safety semantics, and the description fills in the return format and use case, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 only parameter (include_inactive) is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and default. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.
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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists return fields and contrasts with subscribe/unsubscribe by saying 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' which distinguishes it from related tools.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It implies alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe) but does not name them explicitly or provide a 'when not to use' statement, so it stops short of a 5.
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 natural-language query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) have heavily overlapping purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. The five Polymarket tools also have subtle boundaries, though the IMF, memory, and subscription clusters are clearly separated.
Most tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_data, resolve_entity, subscribe, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist: noun-first names like entity_profile and ai_visibility_check, brand-prefixed names like pipeworx_feedback and pipeworx_trending, and ask_pipeworx_beta using a suffix instead of an underscore.
34 tools is well above the range that remains easily navigable, and the count is inflated by many meta-tools, overlapping query entry points, and five distinct Polymarket tools. The server is named Imf, yet it also carries npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, AI visibility checks, and prediction-market tooling, making the scope feel unfocused.
Subdomain lifecycles are reasonably covered: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and data access has discovery, lookup, grounding, and research paths. However, the overall domain is so broad that a complete surface is hard to define, and the IMF-specific portion is thin (only get_data, get_datasets, and search_indicators).