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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by listing the exact fields returned and emphasizing that it lists 'active' subscriptions by default, which goes beyond the schema and 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: the first states the action and return fields, the second explains when to use it. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the action, return values, and usage context, and aligns perfectly with the schema and annotations.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (include_inactive) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action ('List') and the resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), and specifies the return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on the read-only listing of existing subscriptions.
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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This clearly implies when to use it relative to subscribe/unsubscribe, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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.
ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing and response shape, while the polymarket_* family and company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) have overlapping triggers. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can still easily select the wrong variant.
Names are readable and consistently snake_case, with recognizable families like ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_*. However, conventions mix verb_noun patterns (compare_entities, resolve_entity) with noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), so the pattern is not fully consistent.
32 tools is heavy for any single server, and nearly all of them are unrelated to the 'Jsonschema' name—only validate_json_schema actually addresses JSON Schema. Even viewed as a Pipeworx data/research toolkit, the set feels bloated with near-duplicate query and prediction-market variants.
If the intended domain is JSON Schema, the surface is severely incomplete: only validation exists, with no parsing, generation, or schema-management tools. If the intended domain is the Pipeworx data-research suite, it is more complete but still lacks a raw record-fetch tool despite citations promising pipeworx:// URIs, and the server-name mismatch creates a confusing dead end.