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 read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful context about default active-only behavior and the include_inactive parameter, but no further behavioral details are needed.
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?
Two concise sentences: one for action and return fields, one for usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
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 the return structure and usage scenario, making it complete for agent invocation.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter (include_inactive). The description reinforces the default behavior but adds no new parameter information, meeting the baseline.
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 active subscriptions) and specifies the returned fields (id, type, params, timestamps, fire_count). It is distinct from sibling tools like 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?
Explicitly advises when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for selection among siblings.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research all query data), making it hard for an agent to choose the correct one. Additionally, entity_profile and compare_entities both provide company profiles, adding further ambiguity.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some noun_verb (entity_profile), and some are single verbs (forget, recall). There is no clear pattern, and the mix of styles (e.g., kroger_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) adds confusion.
34 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a broad domain (grocery, data query, betting, subscriptions). However, the presence of multiple similar query tools (e.g., three ask_pipeworx variants) inflates the count unnecessarily, making it feel bloated.
For its stated Kroger grocery focus, the tools (search, details, store locator) are complete. However, the server also includes many unrelated tools (betting, entity profiles, subscriptions) that feel tacked on, leaving gaps in coverage for the non-Kroger domains (e.g., no tools for user management or other store chains).