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, and destructiveHint=false, effectively communicating safety. The description adds details about returned fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or rate limits. With strong annotations, a baseline score is appropriate.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then usage guidance. Efficiently structured.
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 needed), rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It sufficiently explains what the tool does and when to use it.
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 does not add further semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is suitable.
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 'list the caller's active subscriptions'—a specific verb (list) and resource (subscriptions) with scope ('caller's active'). It also enumerates return fields, distinguishing it from siblings 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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context among sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe makes this acceptable.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical semantic space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route through the same 5,798 tools and differ mainly in output strictness or testing status. The Polymarket cluster also has significant boundary overlap, and the 'Nasa' server name makes the large block of unrelated data tools even more confusing to navigate.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_apod, search_nasa_images, resolve_entity, validate_claim, unsubscribe), and family prefixes like ask_pipeworx and polymarket_ are consistent. A few noun-first outliers like entity_profile, deep_research, and bet_research break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is still readable and predictable.
With 36 tools, this set is well beyond the comfortable 3-15 range and even exceeds the 16-25 'heavy' band. Only about five tools actually relate to the server's apparent NASA identity, while the rest form a general data/Pipeworx utility kit that would be better split into a separate server.
For a server named 'Nasa,' the surface is thin: APOD, asteroids, Mars rover photos, solar flares, and image search cover only a slice of NASA's API portfolio, with no launch schedules, Earth imagery, mission/news feeds, or ISS data. The general Pipeworx tools make the server broad but incoherent, and a user focused on NASA would hit dead ends quickly.