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 safety profile is established. The description adds the scope (caller's own subscriptions) and a precise return-field list, going beyond the annotations. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or inactive behavior, but that is minor.
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 fluff: purpose and return fields are front-loaded, followed by a practical usage scenario. Every sentence earns its place.
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 sufficiently covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It relies on the schema for include_inactive, which is a reasonable division of labor.
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 of include_inactive, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention this parameter but also does not contradict it. The listed return fields give useful context that aids understanding the parameter's effect.
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 and enumerates the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). It distinguishes from subscribe/unsubscribe by framing this as the review step before adding or canceling 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?
Explicitly states when to use the tool: to review what you're monitoring before adding more and to find an id to cancel. This strongly implies alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe) without naming sibling tools, but the context is clear.
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 tool set mixes OKX exchange tools with a large set of Pipeworx data query tools and prediction market tools. Many tools overlap in purpose, e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all answer questions but with different modes. OKX tools like ticker and tickers are clear but the overall set is confusing.
Naming is inconsistent: OKX tools use single nouns or underscores (ticker, order_book), Pipeworx tools use verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), and prediction market tools use prefixed names (polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research). No consistent pattern.
43 tools is excessive for a coherent server. The scope is unclear—combining exchange, data lookup, and prediction market tools into one server results in a cluttered surface.
The server tries to cover too many domains. OKX coverage is decent, but the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) makes the set feel incomplete for any single purpose. Gaps exist in each sub-domain due to the broad scope.