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, destructiveHint. The description adds that it lists only the caller's subscriptions and restricts to active ones by default, providing scope beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 purpose, followed by return fields and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value 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?
Given the low complexity (one optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. No gaps are evident.
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 has full coverage (100%) with a description for the single optional parameter. The tool description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and specifies the returned fields (id, type, params, etc.), making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on listing.
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 use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'. This offers good guidance but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from querying data (ask_pipeworx) to entity profiling (entity_profile) to prediction market analysis (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). Even similar tools like deep_research and ask_pipeworx are differentiated by scope (single vs. multi-facet). There is no ambiguity.
The vast majority of tools use snake_case (e.g., validate_claim, compare_entities). However, a few tools are single words (forget, recall, remember, subscribe, unsubscribe) which breaks the pattern slightly. This is a minor inconsistency.
With 33 tools, the set is on the larger side but well-justified by the broad scope of the server (data querying, entity research, prediction markets, JSON utilities, subscriptions, etc.). Each tool serves a specific need, making the count appropriate.
The tool surface covers virtually all expected operations for the domain: querying, profiling, comparison, change tracking, validation, discovery, subscriptions, memory, and utilities. No obvious gaps are present for the intended use case of accessing Pipeworx data and related tasks.