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 indicate it's read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns specific fields and is scoped to the caller's subscriptions, which are useful behavioral traits beyond 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, front-loads the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It lists the return fields and provides usage context, though it could mention that subscriptions are scoped by default to active ones.
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 100% description coverage for its single parameter (include_inactive). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so the baseline score 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 identifies the tool as listing the caller's active subscriptions, specifying the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by indicating it's a read-only review operation.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly 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.
The four legislation tools are clearly distinct, but the set as a whole is confusing: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping research/verification purposes. The 31 non-legislation tools also create constant ambiguity about which tool to pick for a UK law question.
Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow recognizable verb-led or prefixed patterns (get_legislation, search_legislation, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile, bet_research, and recent_changes are noun-phrase style rather than verb_noun, but there is no camelCase mixing or chaotic convention.
A server named 'Legislation Uk' has 35 tools, only 4 of which relate to UK legislation; the rest are Pipeworx data-platform, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities. This is an extreme mismatch between the tool count and the server's apparent purpose.
The UK legislation portion covers the core read workflow well: search_legislation finds a statute, get_legislation returns metadata, and get_legislation_text/get_legislation_section provide full or section-level text with versioning. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated amendment-history or cross-version diff tool, but there are no dead ends for typical lookups.