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, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and the default behavior of listing only active subscriptions. 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-loading the core action and return fields in the first sentence, and adding usage guidance concisely in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 covers the main purpose, the scope ('caller's subscriptions'), the return fields, and two concrete use cases. No obvious gaps exist given the tool's simplicity.
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 single optional parameter 'include_inactive' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'the caller's active subscriptions', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by focusing on listing 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 provides explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear and actionable, linking to sibling tools implicitly.
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 distinct purposes, but there is overlap, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research all for data lookup, and multiple Polymarket tools. Descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish, but the set is confusing.
Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (resolve_entity), underscores (ask_pipeworx), and domain-specific prefixes (polymarket_). No consistent pattern across tools.
With 38 tools spanning geospatial, data lookup, prediction markets, memory, feedback, etc., the count is too high for a coherent server. Many tools are one-off and unrelated to the server's name (Maptiler).
The tool set covers many areas but lacks obvious gaps for each domain (e.g., MapTiler only has 4 tools). The overall surface is a collection of unrelated features, not a cohesive domain, so completeness is poor for any single purpose.