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 and idempotentHint, so the description adds extra value by specifying that only the caller's subscriptions are returned and listing the fields. No contradiction.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant information. Every word 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?
Given the simple tool (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema), the description lists return fields and usage context, making it complete enough for the agent.
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 the single parameter well-described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing.
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 advises to use this tool before adding more subscriptions or to find an ID for cancellation, providing clear context and exclusions.
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 have overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and suggest_questions all answer or route questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The descriptions do a good job of prescribing when to use each, and the polymarket, memory, and subscription families are mostly distinct, but boundaries are easy to miss.
Most names are readable snake_case and families like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are consistent, but the set mixes verb_noun tools like compare_entities and validate_claim with noun phrases like entity_profile and recent_changes, plus bare verbs like events and forget. There is no single predictable naming pattern across the full set.
33 tools is well over the 25+ threshold, and the count is padded by a large Pipeworx research and prediction-market stack alongside just two OpenAgenda-specific tools. A server named Openagenda would be better served by a much smaller, focused event-calendar set, or by splitting unrelated capabilities into separate servers.
For OpenAgenda, the surface is essentially read-only: search_agendas plus events, with no agenda/event creation, update, deletion, or detailed single-resource views. The Pipeworx side is comparatively richer, but that does not fill the gaps in the domain the server name advertises.