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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are scoped to the caller, include only active subscriptions by default, and detail the exact fields returned (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it doesn't discuss pagination or limits.
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 tight sentences. The first states purpose and output fields; the second gives concrete use cases. No filler or repetition of annotations.
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?
Simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. Description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Combined with strong annotations, this is complete for an agent to select and invoke.
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 covers 100% of parameters with include_inactive described as 'Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false).' The description echoes this by saying 'active subscriptions' but adds no technical detail beyond the schema, 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?
Description opens with 'List the caller's active subscriptions' — a specific verb (list), resource (subscriptions), and scope (caller's active). It also enumerates return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe and clarifying it's a read-only enumeration.
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 second sentence explicitly says when to use: 'before adding more' (implying subscribe) and 'to find an id to cancel' (implying unsubscribe). This gives clear situational guidance, even if alternatives aren't named by tool name.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are variants of the same router, and the six polymarket_* tools cover overlapping arbitrage/edge analysis territory. ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and discover_tools vs suggest_questions add further boundary ambiguity. While descriptions try to differentiate, an agent could easily misselect among these clusters.
Most names are readable snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: verbs vary (ask, get, list, scan, search, suggest, validate, generate, compare) and several tools are named by product prefix (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*) rather than by action. The pattern is predictable within clusters but inconsistent across the set.
33 tools is heavy for the server's stated name, 'Metals Api', which only has two metals-related tools (get_historical, get_latest). Even as a general data-research server, the surface is bloated with memory utilities, subscription management, feedback, trending, and unrelated AI-visibility scanning. The scope mismatch makes the count feel unjustified.
The core metals domain is thin: latest and single-date historical prices exist, but there is no time-series range query, no list of supported metals, and no explicit currency conversion endpoint. The broader data-research/subscription/memory surface is relatively complete, but it is disconnected from the server's apparent purpose, leaving notable gaps for a metals-focused agent.