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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and clarifying the scope to the caller's subscriptions. It also implies default filtering to active subscriptions, which is useful context beyond annotations.
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: first states purpose and returns, second gives usage guidance. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the action, making it immediately scannable.
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 nature (no output schema, one optional param), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of returned fields.
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%: the only parameter (include_inactive) has a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter explanation fully.
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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It specifies the scope (caller's) and further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on listing. It also enumerates returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives concrete scenarios tied to sibling tools (subscribe/unsubscribe), effectively conveying when to use vs alternatives.
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 are effectively indistinguishable or near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical copy of ask_pipeworx with no active experimental changes, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is a variant of the same router. discover_tools, suggest_questions, deep_research, and the ask_pipeworx family also heavily overlap as discovery/answer surfaces, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk create a dense prediction-market cluster with fuzzy boundaries.
Everything is snake_case and many names follow a readable verb_noun pattern (search_works, resolve_entity, validate_claim, suggest_questions), but conventions are mixed: noun-first domain-prefixed names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and adjective_noun names (deep_research, recent_changes) coexist. The inconsistency is not chaotic, but it is not a unified scheme.
36 tools is well over the 25-tool threshold for a heavy toolset, and the count is inflated by many tangential concerns: memory, subscriptions, feedback, trending, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility, and llms.txt generation. Only a small subset actually serves the stated OpenAlex/scholarly purpose, so the size feels bloated rather than well-scoped.
For a server named openalex, the scholarly surface is incomplete: works support search and fetch, but authors and institutions only support search with no get-by-ID, concepts support get but no search, and major OpenAlex resource types like sources, publishers, funders, and topics are absent. The many non-OpenAlex tools do not fill these gaps and instead dilute the domain coverage.