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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the default filtering of inactive subscriptions and specifies the return fields, which is useful context beyond annotations since no output schema exists. However, it does not mention pagination or potential large result sizes.
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 filler. The first sentence states the action and output; the second provides actionable use cases. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core 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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it names the tool's function, lists the return fields to compensate for the missing output schema, and gives usage context. Combined with strong annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with a clear description for include_inactive. The description does not need to repeat this, and the active-subscription context already hints at the default behavior. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantic burden.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'the caller's active subscriptions'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on enumeration rather than creation or cancellation, and it explicitly lists the returned fields.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus adding or removing subscriptions, covering both pre-add and pre-cancel scenarios.
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.
Descriptions are exceptionally detailed and differentiate tools well; the ask_pipeworx family (stable/beta/grounded), polymarket tools, and npm lookup tools each have clear separation of intent. Minor overlap exists between polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage (both surface opportunities) and between discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending (all aid discovery), but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
All names are snake_case and several families are consistent (get_*, list_*, search_*, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*), but the convention is inconsistent: verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency) coexist with noun-first or noun-only names (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_alerts, ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). No clear governing pattern beyond snake_case.
36 tools is well over the 25-tool heavy threshold, and the majority (~29) are unrelated to the server's declared 'npm' identity — they are Pipeworx data-query, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. Only about 7 tools (search_packages, get_package, get_version_info, list_versions, get_downloads, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) actually pertain to npm. The scope is a kitchen-sink mismatch with the server name.
For npm, the read-side surface is reasonably complete: search, inspect package metadata, version listings, download counts, and a dependency-safety composite check. However, there are no lifecycle operations (publish, unpublish, deprecate, set versions/tags), leaving a notable gap, and the bulk of the server's functionality (data queries, prediction bets) belongs to an entirely different domain that can't be cohesively evaluated against the npm purpose.